ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Reserve Recruitment

Toby Perkins: What recent progress he has made on reserve recruitment; and if he will make a statement.

Julian Brazier: The programme to grow the reserves is on track. We have reversed 18 years of decline. Our more recent official figures, published on 13 November, show an increase in both recruitment and the trained strength of the reserves. Enlistment numbers are increasing and recruitment times are reducing, thanks to improvements that the three services have made.

Toby Perkins: I am very concerned to hear that the net increase of just 20 reservists is actually a part of the Government’s plan. With our regular forces at their lowest numbers since the Napoleonic wars, the news that just 20 extra reservists have signed up is extremely worrying. Will the Minister tell us his assessment of why the almost £2 million spent on advertising and all the warm words have not led to the extra reservists that we desperately need given the huge reduction in the regular forces that we have seen?

Julian Brazier: In the six months to 30 September, 2,770 people joined the reserves. That is an increase of 61% compared with the same period last year. The bulk of the difference occurred during the second half of that period, because it is only in the last few months that our changes in the recruiting process have come through.

Nicholas Soames: May I thank my hon. Friend for the important reforms that he has instigated and the fact that he has taken this back and we now look to substantial improvements? May I assure him that recruiting in the Yeomanry Squadron, with which I am associated, is going extremely well? The only problem that remains is for the Government to persuade employers that it is well worth letting their employees go for territorial service.

Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend, who is of course a distinguished former Minister for the Armed Forces. I was privileged to visit the unit he mentions, the Royal Yeomanry, which is now over strength. The point he makes about employers is well taken. We recently enhanced the package for small businesses, with a supplementary £500 a month, on top of the rest of the compensation package for small businesses that release people for operations. We also have a considerable initiative in the wider country.

Ann McKechin: I declare an interest as a member of the Strathclyde-area Lowland Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. Can the Minister say whether he has carried out any regional or national analysis of reserve recruitment figures, whether there are any problems in different parts of the country and whether a more individual and specific approach to recruitment requires to be taken as a result?

Julian Brazier: I am most grateful for the service that the hon. Lady gives on the RFCA board in Scotland. The RFCAs are critical. To answer her question, we are looking at it. I do not have a comprehensive answer for her, but the four recruitment centres through which every recruit passes have a different track record. Some of them have had much tighter capacity constraints. We have taken measures to ease those. Scotland has had a number of interesting initiatives of its own, as well as leading the way on phase 1 training. We are trying to get best practice spread around the country.

John Baron: However these figures are dressed up, the Ministry of Defence’s own figures show that the trained strength of the Army reserve has actually fallen over the last 18 months. Given that the Government have had to throw more money at the reforms, including added incentives to join up, will the Minister answer the one question that the Government have so far ducked: how much extra are these reforms costing, over and above original estimates?

Julian Brazier: Over the past six months, the trained strength of the volunteer reserves has increased by 400, and it is only in the last three months that most of the reforms we have introduced have bitten. The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that we are confident that the figure that we originally offered—1.8, over the 10-year period—will be adequate for the purpose. We are still aiming to reach our targets. Numbers are growing and recruiting is increasing rapidly.[Official Report, 2 December 2014, Vol. 589, c. 1MC.]

Vernon Coaker: A key plank of the Government’s defence policy was to increase the number of reservists to make up for the reduction, by a fifth, of the regular Army, but the latest figures, however dressed up, show an increase of just 20 Army reservists in a year. The Government have had two years, spent millions on advertising and revised down their targets, and there has still been no improvement. It is becoming clear that this key plank is now dead wood. Does the Minister have a plan B, or is “Don’t panic!” the only answer offered by him and Captain Mainwaring there on the Front Bench?

Julian Brazier: The size of the volunteer reserves, including the then Territorial Army, halved under the last Government, and we inherited a structure that had lost most of its officers and was falling apart. The size of the Regular Army was reduced because of cash constraints that arose from an economic crisis we inherited. Our plans to expand the reserves are not designed as a direct substitute for regular numbers; they are designed to provide the kind of reserve—the framework for expansion—that would be needed in a time of national crisis.

Vernon Coaker: Permission to speak, sir—they don’t like it up ’em, do they? We need to see a clear plan to address concerns about future gaps in the armed forces’ capability, so why have the Government rejected recommendations by the Public Accounts Committee to put in place contingency measures if reserve recruitment continues to fall? Surely that is just plain common sense. Is this not further proof that when it comes to defence, the Government have no strategy and just make it up as they go along?

Julian Brazier: I think the hon. Gentleman wrote that question before he heard my earlier answer. His premise is that reserve recruiting is falling, but reserve recruiting increased in the last six months by 61% compared with the equivalent period last year. We are confident that it will go on increasing, so the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question is, I am afraid, wrong.

War Widows

Andrew Bridgen: What steps he is taking to protect the pensions of war widows who subsequently remarry or cohabit.

Robert Jenrick: What steps he is taking to protect the pensions of war widows who subsequently remarry or cohabit.

Anna Soubry: I am sure the whole House warmly welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement on 8 November that from April next year, the armed forces pension scheme ’75 and the war pension scheme will be changed to ensure that war widows will be able to continue to claim the pension when they remarry or cohabit.

Andrew Bridgen: I congratulate my hon. Friend on resolving this issue, ensuring that all those entitled to an armed forces pension retain it for life. But may I press her a little harder on what steps individuals affected by this most welcome change have to take to ensure that they benefit from it?

Anna Soubry: The simple answer is, of course, that I always want to help people if I can, but if they call Veterans UK on 0808 1914 218, they will be able to receive all the advice they need.

Robert Jenrick: My constituent, Mrs Stella Weatherby, herself a war widow, sends her sincere thanks to the Government, as does the Royal Air Force Association club of Newark, which wrote to me to say that, should the Secretary of State find himself again in Newark—not in a by-election, I hope—he should drop by for a drink
	or two. Having made this welcome decision, will the Minister encourage her ministerial colleagues to consider the same treatment for widows of police and emergency service workers who have been killed on active service elsewhere?

Anna Soubry: The Secretary of State and I are always happy to go to the RAFA club in Newark to enjoy a couple of sherbets. Answering my hon. Friend’s question as posed, in blunt terms, the decision was made using the covenant. The view was taken, quite properly, that this section of our armed forces—those widows—suffered a disadvantage by virtue of, usually, their husbands’ service. That is why we did this under the covenant. No Government have ever supported retrospective changes—as would be required for the widows of police officers and members of our fire brigades—in pension plans. I understand the injustice—I absolutely get that—but it would require retrospective changes, which are not a good idea. As I say, the changes made were done quite properly under the covenant, which this Government introduced and put into law.

Frank Roy: What action have the Government taken to help local authorities identify ex-service personnel and their families, including war widows, who are entitled to state support?

Anna Soubry: I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman’s question, as I did not quite understand all of it, but local authorities should always make sure that they invoke the covenant. Having all signed up, they are the ones who can deliver on it. I am keen to ensure that that happens.

Gerald Howarth: As one who said some 10 years ago, when I was shadow veterans Minister, that the next Conservative Government would implement this welcome change, I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State on having delivered something that is of huge benefit and has righted an injustice. Is this not a very good example of the Government’s implementation of the military covenant?

Anna Soubry: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for all the work that he did to support the campaign. These women have campaigned for decades for justice, and it has been possible to achieve it precisely because we put the military covenant into law and are now delivering on it.

ISIL

David Rutley: What recent discussions he has had with his middle east counterparts on steps to counter ISIL.

Michael Fallon: During my recent visits I met the Iraqi Prime Minister, Defence Minister and national security adviser, the President and Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Government, and my counterparts in the region, including those in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. I hope to meet the King and Crown Prince of Bahrain and the United States Defence Secretary at next week’s conference in Manama for further discussion of steps to counter ISIL

David Rutley: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our partners in the middle east value the capability that the United Kingdom brings, and that we are making a substantial contribution to the coalition? What plans has he to do more in the fight against ISIL?

Michael Fallon: Our contribution to coalition activity so far has been second only to that of the United States, in surveillance, intelligence-gathering, strike missions, and the supply of arms and ammunition. We plan to provide further training and assistance—specifically, further training for the Kurdish peshmerga and the Iraqi armed forces—and to advise and assist the Iraqi armed forces through the secondment of further advisory personnel to command headquarters. We also plan to make a significant contribution to the training of moderate elements of the Syrian opposition.

Pat Glass: How long does the Secretary of State expect the current action to last, and has he any plans to extend it?

Michael Fallon: I cannot put a time frame on the current action, although I think the United States Secretary of State considered that it would take years rather than months or weeks. The present position is that the advance of ISIL has been halted, but pushing ISIL back out of the territory that it has gained will obviously present a huge challenge to the Iraqi and Kurdish forces, supported by the coalition.

Mark Pritchard: Given that British nationals are now known to be fighting with ISIL, with the Syrian army and with the Kurdish forces, what discussions has the Defence Secretary had with the Home Secretary to ensure that we have the legal instruments that will enable us to deal with those people appropriately on their return?

Michael Fallon: I know that the Home Secretary has been considering that very actively during the last few weeks, and will present further proposals to the House. It is very important for those who go to fight against the interests of this country by supporting ISIL to understand that they are fighting for an organisation that is proscribed, and that if they are detained when they return, they can be charged and prosecuted.

Ian Lucas: One of the reasons for the initial failure of the Iraqi army against ISIL was its inability to present itself as being part of the Iraqi nation as a whole, given that groups such as the Assyrian Christians and Kurds were excluded. Did the Secretary of State have any discussions about making the army much more inclusive, so that there can be a force that is united against ISIL and fighting on behalf of the whole of Iraq?

Michael Fallon: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. The point that he has made is perfectly fair. I continue to make clear to the Defence Minister and Prime Minister in Baghdad that they must have the support of all interests in Iraq. I think that the recent agreement between three of the tribes in Anbar province and the Iraqi army to fight ISIL together, and the growing rapprochement—the interim agreement—between
	the Kurdish Regional Government and the federal Government in Baghdad, are pointers to the growing inclusiveness of the Government, which must be demonstrated in action. The reforms that are being made to the army, including the dismissal of some corps commanders and the recruitment of a genuinely inclusive national guard, are hopeful signs for the future.

Bilateral Training Programmes (Libya)

Thomas Docherty: What recent discussions he has had with his Libyan counterpart on bilateral training programmes.

Michael Fallon: Given the deteriorating security situation in Libya, I have not had the chance to discuss training with my Libyan counterpart, but I continue to discuss the situation in Libya with our regional partners. General purpose force training was designed in 2013 at the request of the Libyan Government. The majority of trainees met the required standards but some did not. That was unacceptable and work is already under way on the report that the Prime Minister has commissioned.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. As he has touched on, the Government’s much-heralded UK training programme collapsed after serious allegations about the behaviour of some of the individuals, but of course that does not mean we should abandon the moderate elements in Libya. Will the Secretary of State outline the practical steps he is taking to deal with what has happened, and when can we expect to see the details of the new programme, wherever that is carried out?

Michael Fallon: This training programme was organised by the United Kingdom at the request of the Libyan Government and a number of locations were considered for it. The most cost-effective turned out to be here in the UK, but I think it likely that we shall learn from this and that this kind of training is probably better provided and organised in the country itself, or very close to it. That is difficult at the moment given the security situation in Libya, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to work with all parties in Libya, particularly the moderates in all three factions in Libya, to secure a political settlement.

Kevan Jones: Three hundred and twenty-eight Libyan service personnel began their training in the UK in June 2014. Can the Secretary of State say how many remain in the country and how many have claimed asylum?

Michael Fallon: Three hundred and twenty-eight signed up originally. Some 100 left during the course of their training by agreement with the Libyan authorities. The remainder have all now been returned properly to Libya, apart from five who remain in custody and a very small handful who have claimed asylum.

Afghanistan

Paul Flynn: What recent progress has been made on the armed forces drawdown from Afghanistan

Mark Francois: On 26 October, our troops left Camp Bastion and, as confirmed by the Secretary of State, the final UK personnel left Kandahar airfield yesterday. All of our major equipment and matériel has now left the country. A few hundred UK personnel remain in Kabul, at the invitation of the Afghans, to train the Afghan army’s future officers and provide continuing support to Afghan security ministries. I share the Defence Secretary’s view that our armed forces can take great pride in the completion of their deployment to southern Afghanistan. Thanks to their courage and dedication, the country has the best possible chance of a stable future. Our departure from Kandahar airfield is therefore an historic milestone.

Paul Flynn: Is not the need for a swift start to an inquiry into the Afghan war proved by the fact that today is the fifth anniversary of the start of the Chilcot inquiry, which planned to report within 12 months? Do not the loved ones of the 179 of our brave soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq need to know the truth and why they were sent there in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and the relatives of the 451 casualties need to know why we went into Helmand in the belief that not a shot would be fired? Can the Minister give us an assurance that these reports are not being delayed by those who will be judged guilty by them?

Mark Francois: It was 453, and we honour them all. We have been learning tactical lessons through our operations in Afghanistan, such as better detection and defusing of IEDs. Of course we will want to look at broader lessons that can be learned from the campaign, but our focus has been on a successful draw-down and no decisions have been taken yet on any review. In making such a decision on a review, the Government will wish to learn how best any improvements could be made both quickly and practically.

Stephen Mosley: I welcome the Government’s role in bringing together the London conference on Afghanistan, which is taking place on 4 December. Will the Minister briefly update the House on what the Government’s aims are? How hopeful are the Government of being successful at that conference?

Mark Francois: The conference will centre mainly on economic development, but it is worth recording that we should be very proud of what our armed forces have done. We have assisted in training the Afghans to deliver their own security and to protect their elections, which led to the first democratic transfer of power in Afghanistan’s history and the election of a national unity Government. It is now for the Afghans to determine their own future, with our ongoing support. They have done this because of the hard work of our troops. We have given them a chance; we must hope they will take it.

Keith Vaz: The position of Afghan interpreters is of great concern. Only a very few have been given the right to settle in this country. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the rest of them will be protected? After all, they sacrificed their lives on behalf of our country.

Mark Francois: We have two schemes in place—those who served alongside UK forces for substantial periods are eligible to receive financial packages, and those who
	served alongside us on the front line have, in some cases, the option of resettlement in the United Kingdom. So far about 350 have opted for the resettlement package. There is a separate intimidation policy which protects those locally employed civilians at risk as a result of their employment with Her Majesty’s Government. In the most extreme cases that includes the option to resettle in the United Kingdom. The processing of those cases is ongoing, but it is important to remember that there are two schemes working in parallel.

Armed Forces Covenant

Angie Bray: What progress he has made on strengthening the armed forces covenant.

Anna Soubry: In addition to doing the right thing by our war widows, I am pleased to report that 3,222 applications to the Forces Help to Buy scheme have been approved, and 1,864 service personnel have received funding totalling about £28 million.

Angie Bray: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is encouraging that all local authorities and a growing number of companies have signed up to support the covenant? Does she further agree that the challenge now is to get those commitments turned into action?

Anna Soubry: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend and I thank her for that supplementary question. I am in the process of writing to the chief executive and leader of every local authority because, as we know, most services are delivered locally. This is not about money. It is about putting into action everything that they have signed up to. There is a great deal of work that local MPs can do to make sure that local authorities have a forces champion and that they are delivering on the covenant.

Dan Jarvis: The Minister is well aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and I have been raising the case of the late Corporal McLaughlin, who lost his life in the Falklands in 1982. We recently discussed this matter during a constructive Westminster Hall debate. Yesterday The Mail on Sunday reported that the MOD will make rigorous and extensive inquiries into this case on behalf of his family. I welcome that, if it is correct. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case and say what form those inquiries will take?

Anna Soubry: I can confirm that. I pay tribute to Corporal McLaughlin, who was undoubtedly incredibly brave. What he did in the Falkland Islands was remarkable. I pay tribute to the debate that we had last week. I have met Lord Astor, who is the Minister responsible for medals. We had an exceptionally good meeting and there will indeed be such an investigation. We will report that accordingly.

Christopher Pincher: I represent many constituents who work and do great service at DMS Whittington. They and I are fully aware which Government enshrined the armed forces covenant in law. Will my hon. Friend continue to
	build on the covenant to ensure that our armed forces get the best clinical staff and clinical support, as they deserve?

Anna Soubry: Absolutely. It was a great pleasure to go to DMS Whittington back in October. This is where we now have to do the work—it is going to be quite difficult, because we have to get the message out right across the NHS that there should be no disadvantage to those who have served and that, in special circumstances, they should receive special consideration, based on bereavement and particularly bad injuries. GPs and all health professionals must be alert to that. We all have a role to play in making sure that in the NHS we deliver on the armed forces covenant.

Gemma Doyle: Two weeks ago I met a veteran in Preston who was injured in service and now uses a prosthetic leg. He is being treated in a regular NHS clinic, not in the specialist veterans prosthetics centre in Preston. He wants to know why, and so do I. The Minister reportedly says that her job is not demanding. When will she start doing it properly and make sure that there is some connection between what she says at the Dispatch Box and the treatment that our veterans actually get?

Anna Soubry: I assure the hon. Lady that I never said any such thing. It is an absolute pleasure and a great honour to do the job that I do, and I like to think that I do it with total commitment. I, too, want to know why that man has not received the treatment he says he should have received, and I should be grateful if the hon. Lady met me so that we can discuss why that is. I have no difficulty whatsoever in taking up every single case and asking the questions. It was a challenge I threw down to the BBC; I said, “I want to know the names and I want to help.” I am waiting to hear of any of those details. I look forward to the hon. Lady’s supplying me with the details relating to her constituent; we will get it sorted.

Bob Russell: The armed forces covenant had all-party support, and we should remember that. The Minister referred to local government. Can she give an assurance that all Government Departments are signed up to the covenant, and particularly the Department of Health regarding general practitioners, veterans and hearing loss?

Anna Soubry: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and good point. He has asked a couple of questions in one, and I hope to answer them as fully as I can. It is delivery that is important, which means that all our Departments have to sign up to it, but of course, they can play a part in delivering the corporate covenant as well. However, there is more that we can do, and we have to get the message out across the NHS and through the devolved Administrations. If we all do that—if I may say, working together to ensure that—we can absolutely deliver on the covenant in the way we want.

Nicholas Dakin: Does the covenant offer an opportunity for local and national Government to respond to my constituent Sue MacLean’s campaign
	to ensure that veterans who pass away without anyone to deal with their affairs have something more than a pauper’s funeral to recognise their passing?

Anna Soubry: I am more than happy to discuss this with the hon. Gentleman. We know that our forces charities play such an incredibly important part in the welfare of and assistance given not only to those who serve, but to veterans. We have a fabulous system in this country of which we should be proud.

Army Reserve

Bob Blackman: What steps he is taking to promote service in the Army Reserve.

Alok Sharma: What steps he is taking to promote service in the Army Reserve.

Julian Brazier: Being a reservist is a great way to experience adventure with new comrades, develop leadership qualities, learn new skills and get paid up to £3,000 in the first year, while maintaining a civilian life and day job. Funding of nearly £2 million has been delegated to fund regional and unit initiatives, as we believe that it is from the unit level that the greatest impetus for recruiting should come.

Bob Blackman: On Remembrance Sunday, I had the honour and privilege of meeting the commander of the reserve base in my constituency. He made it clear that capacity was available for new volunteers to come forward. What further steps does my hon. Friend suggest we can take to ensure that people locally can volunteer, should they wish to do so?

Julian Brazier: The short answer is that we have a very considerable advertising programme and a programme of engagement with employers—from the civil service down to small businesses and the special measures for them that I mentioned. The best advocates of all are serving reservists themselves, who need to go out and talk about the new opportunities. Examples include the platoon from my own constituency which, with a reserve officer commanding it, is going off to serve in Afghanistan from February onwards; the company that has just been to Cyprus; and all the other opportunities that are available in reserve service.

Alok Sharma: The fantastic 7 Rifles, based at Brock barracks in my constituency, will be encouraged by my hon. Friend’s answer, but could he please outline any specific incentives that employers are being offered to encourage their employees to become reservists? He has talked about the package for small businesses; can he provide a bit more detail, please?

Julian Brazier: I in fact served in the unit to which my hon. Friend refers when it was 4th Green Jackets. The £500 a month on deployment available to small businesses is over and above the full compensation package available to all employers when soldiers are away on operations. It is estimated that the training experience gained from an average period of mobilisation is worth up to £8,000 for a private, £14,000 for a sergeant and £18,000 for an
	officer. We have a full employer recognition scheme for supportive employers, and I myself have signed off a number of the dozens of organisations coming through, large and small, that want to be part of this exciting initiative.

Stephen Doughty: I have had the privilege of meeting reservists and potential reserve recruits up and down the country, including in Wales. Many potential recruits are deeply disturbed by the length of time they are having to wait after their initial expression of interest. What is the Minister’s estimate of the number who are dropping out of the reserve recruitment process as a result of the delays that are being experienced by so many people?

Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there was a very considerable glitch in the pipeline, but we have taken a number of steps to solve it. People can now be enlisted even if their medical documents have not caught up with them, and they can be enlisted pending their security checks once they have done the initial interview. We have also very considerably increased the capacity at the assessment centres so that people are not caught waiting for places. All those changes are making a considerable difference. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer to his final question, but it is quite a number. I hope that that will not be the case in future, however, because the process has now speeded up so much.

Andrew Gwynne: Reports by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Defence Select Committee into Army 2020 have all said that Ministers have not done the basic work necessary to bring forward those reforms successfully. Poor planning data have been used, and assumptions have not been properly tested. What is the Minister going to do to put right this shambles?

Julian Brazier: The outline of the plan came from the original “Future Reserves 2020” review, which was chaired by the current Chief of the Defence Staff. The early blueprint was put together by General Sir Nick Carter, the Chief of the General Staff. The hon. Gentleman is partly right: there were some mistakes in the early stages relating to the way in which the recruiting pipeline was organised. Since those early glitches, we have made considerable changes—relating to meeting a common standard, for example—and recruits are now coming through in much greater numbers.

ISIL

James Gray: What recent steps the UK has taken against ISIL in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Fallon: Since Parliament authorised military action in support of combat operations, the Royal Air Force has flown some 139 missions, gathering intelligence, providing surveillance and striking some 37 targets. We are already providing training and equipment to Kurdish forces and we are now preparing to provide further infantry, combat first aid, sharp-shooting and counter-improvised explosive device training.

James Gray: Does the Secretary of State agree that if our policy aim in Iraq is the successful containment of ISIL, we are indeed making a fantastic contribution towards that, but that if our aim is the degradation or destruction of ISIL, as we were originally told, that will occur only if there is significant political engagement by the Baghdad Government, particularly with Sunni-friendly tribes? Does he agree that, unless we have that wider political engagement, what we are doing is either unnecessary or not enough?

Michael Fallon: Let me confirm to my hon. Friend that it is indeed our aim to help the legitimate Government of Iraq to degrade and defeat ISIL in that country. I agree that the new Government of Iraq have to be inclusive, and they are: they represent Shi’as, Sunnis and Kurds. The new defence Minister is a Sunni, and I have emphasised to him the importance of demonstrating that the Iraqi national army is there for all the peoples of Iraq.

Barry Sheerman: May I remind the Secretary of State that, when I asked the Prime Minister about boots on the ground, he said that they would not be the boots of our own troops but other people’s boots? I have to tell the Secretary of State that, when representatives of my Kurdish community came to see me recently, they were angry that the Kurds fighting for us against ISIL were not being provided with enough machinery or weaponry.

Michael Fallon: I have been to Kurdistan and I was in a training ground close to Irbil where I saw for myself the Kurdish forces training on the heavy machine guns that we in this country had donated to them. We are following that up with the supply of other arms and equipment and, just as importantly, the training to go with it.

David Jones: There have been recent successes for the Iraqi army and its associated militias of late, but those have been costly, both in lives and equipment. To what extent has the lost equipment been replaced and to what extent are the British Government assisting in that replacement?

Michael Fallon: There have been losses to the Iraqi and the Kurdish forces, which is an indication that they are taking the fight to ISIL, and it is important that we support them in that task. The Iraqi Defence Minister handed me a list of some of the gaps in their capabilities. We are now looking at that and seeing what can be supplied from our inventory, and we are encouraging other countries to do the same.

Aircraft Carriers

Gisela Stuart: When (a) HMS Queen Elizabeth and (b) HMS Prince of Wales will set out to sea under their own power for the first time.

Philip Dunne: In September the Prime Minister announced that he would bring both carriers into service so that we always have one carrier available 100% of the time. Final equipment installation and
	system commissioning plans are being developed for both the aircraft carriers, so we expect HMS Queen Elizabeth to proceed to sea under her own power for the first time in 2017 and HMS Prince of Wales to do so in 2019.

Gisela Stuart: Can the Minister confirm that British F-35Bs, not US marine corps planes, will be the first to operate from the carriers?

Philip Dunne: What I can confirm to the hon. Lady and to the House is that we have today signed a contract for the first batch of four operational aircraft for the first squadron to operate, both from the aircraft carriers and on land.

Julian Lewis: When the carriers are happily operational there will still be one other gap at sea, which will be in marine patrol aircraft. Can the Minister share with the House any moves as to how that gap is going to be filled?

Philip Dunne: As my hon. Friend knows from his persistent challenging of the Front-Bench team on this and other equipment issues, we recognise the need to consider how to meet the maritime patrol aircraft capability gap as part of the strategic defence and security review 2015.

Army 2020

Mary Glindon: What progress he has made on meeting the objectives of the Army 2020 programme; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Fallon: The Army 2020 programme will deliver the flexible and adaptable force the nation needs to defeat the threats of the future, and it is on track. The Army is in the middle of the busiest period of change in the programme, which will see the majority of units completing their reorganisation next year. Despite this ambitious change, the Army remains fully deployable to support current operations, including those in west Africa.

Mary Glindon: The Government significantly revised down their reserve target, but have made no equivalent changes to the programme of redundancies. With all the redundancies now complete but thousands of reserves still to be recruited, is the Army currently under strength and has Britain been left with a dangerous capability gap?

Michael Fallon: Absolutely not. This is a five-year programme to restructure our forces, as they shift from focusing on the campaign in Afghanistan to being an Army that is sufficiently adaptable to be able to meet any threat the nation faces in future. For example, we currently have some 1,350 troops on exercise in Poland and more than 850 deployed to tackle Ebola in west Africa.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Department on what they have achieved towards this programme. Will he share with the House precisely how we are
	helping families who may want their loved ones to serve as reservists but have misgivings about what the implications will be?

Michael Fallon: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend on that. It is very important that families understand the nature of service life, and there can be some misapprehension about the scale and length of reserve activity. If I may, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), the Minister responsible for the reserves, to meet her to see what further reassurance he can offer.

Compensation Claims (Injured Veterans)

Sandra Osborne: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of resources available to process compensation claims for injured armed forces veterans.

Anna Soubry: We have taken on extra staff, including five accredited doctors, to make sure that we process complaints and cases quickly. On the armed forces compensation scheme, I assure the hon. Lady that 100% of the cases of those with the most serious injuries are cleared within 20 days. We are making good progress; I have the full figures available to me, and I will share them with her.

Sandra Osborne: I thank the Minister for her reply. One of my constituents who was injured in Iraq tells me that she is caught up in a quagmire of red tape. She says that many of her queries go unanswered and that it takes years to settle claims. There is an online petition asking for an inquiry into the Veterans Agency in relation to those problems. What will the Minister do about it?

Anna Soubry: If the hon. Lady writes to me directly, I am more than happy to take up her constituent’s difficulty and claim; I have no trouble with that. There have been difficulties, but good progress is being made. Unfortunately, some claims take much longer, because of their complexity and the changing nature of medical needs, diagnoses and prognoses. I can assure her that, in general, we are making good progress.

Ebola

Craig Whittaker: What steps his Department is taking to assist those affected by the Ebola outbreak.

Mark Francois: The Ministry of Defence is providing significant support to the Department for International Development-led effort to combat Ebola. We have deployed RFA Argus with three Merlin helicopters on board. We have also deployed more than 800 personnel for a range of tasks, including providing planning support to the Government of Sierra Leone; supervising the construction of six Ebola treatment units; training more than 3,000 local health care workers, which will increase to 4,000 by the end of the month, exceeding our original target; and manning a 12-bed treatment facility. I saw elements of all those initiatives when I visited Sierra Leone a fortnight ago. I am sure that the whole House will join me in commending our armed forces personnel who are working to combat this terrible disease.

Craig Whittaker: I join my right hon. Friend in praising our incredibly brave troops who are on the ground. Will he tell the House what contribution our reserves are making to this effort and how they are standing side by side with the full-time regulars?

Mark Francois: Two reservists are already working in the joint civilian military headquarters in Sierra Leone, and another two are soon to deploy to the region. In a month or so, we expect 18 reservist medics to deploy to Sierra Leone to work alongside their regular counterparts in the 12-bed Ebola treatment centre at Kerry Town. We should also pay tribute to those NHS personnel who have recently mobilised and travelled out to Sierra Leone to join that effort as well.

Diana Johnson: A church in my constituency would like to send food parcels to Sierra Leone, the capital of which, Freetown, is twinned with Hull. However, it found the transport costs prohibitive, and asked me whether it could work with the Ministry of Defence to find ways of getting the food parcels over to Sierra Leone to help families who are affected by Ebola.

Mark Francois: I appreciate the offer of the hon. Lady’s church. The most constructive thing I can say is that if she wants to write or e-mail me with the details, we will see what can be done to take up that kind offer.

Mr Speaker: Mr Graham Allen. Not here.

Topical Questions

Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Fallon: My immediate priorities remain our current operations in Afghanistan and against ISIL and Ebola as well as the commitments reached at the NATO summit and the delivery of Future Force 2020. I want to build up our reserve forces and invest in the equipment that our armed forces need to keep Britain safe.

Jim Cunningham: Has the Secretary of State noted the comments made today by the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff) who said that he is very disappointed
	“that there appears to be no public dialogue about the Strategic Defence and Security Review in advance this time round.”
	Why are the Government so reluctant to have an open and transparent debate about the future of Britain’s defence?

Michael Fallon: There certainly will be a public dialogue and debate about the security review, but the review is planned for next year, and it would be premature to start it before then.

Stephen Mosley: The number of cyber-attacks against computer systems in the UK are increasing every year, and it is suspected that foreign Governments may well be involved in some
	of those attacks. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to deter such attacks, and what is being done to protect our critical infrastructure?

Mark Francois: The Ministry of Defence takes the cyber-threat very seriously. Indeed, I visited one of our joint cyber-units only last week. The priority is to keep our networks and systems defended and operational. Since 2010, we have invested several hundred million pounds to help maintain the UK’s cyber-security and cyber-defences. In July, the Prime Minister announced a package of investment for our armed forces, which included a further £75 million over four years to help maintain a leading edge capability in this vital field.

Alison Seabeck: Opposition Members were pleased that the Secretary of State took the opportunity, following articles that suggested the opposite, to confirm that the Type 26 will be built in Scotland and not overseas. However, he did not take the opportunity to allay fears about the slippage in the programme, with the approval date going beyond mid-2015. Will he do so today?

Michael Fallon: Let me take the opportunity absolutely to reinforce the point the hon. Lady makes. UK warships are built only in UK yards. I do not think I can make the position on the Clyde any clearer, and I hope she will take some reassurance from that. I am aware of what she says about the timetable and we are addressing that. I hope that we can make some early decisions, at least on some of the longer lead items that feed into the Type 26 programme, in the very near future.

David Mowat: We are the only country in the world to pay legal aid to foreign nationals to sue our own soldiers. The MOD spends many millions more defending these claims. Is there anything more that the Secretary of State can do to divert these millions of pounds away from the legal profession on to the equipment budget?

Anna Soubry: I agree with some of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. There is no place, in my view, for European human rights law to come into any of this. We have a Geneva convention and we have good strong international law that should determine these matters. I am concerned, however, about how some solicitors act. All solicitors, like those in all professions, are guided by strict codes of conduct and if anyone thinks that a firm of solicitors or an individual is not by abiding by that code, they should absolutely report them to their professional body so that swift action is taken. They should at all times behave with complete integrity.

Debbie Abrahams: Official figures show that the Government granted 68 export licences for nearly £7 million-worth of military-use items to be sent to Israel between January and June of this year. What discussions did the Defence Secretary have with the Business Secretary about those licences and why did the Government refuse to suspend them during the offensive on Gaza this summer, when they clearly broke the guiding principle of being responsible exports?

Philip Dunne: The Government were concerned to look at any export licences that had been granted and undertook an initial review in August. We launched another review earlier this month and when it is available we will respond to the hon. Lady.

John Glen: I sincerely welcome the Government’s recent decision to grant pensions to forces widows who remarry. However, there are still 126 divorced spouses, including one of my constituents, who are denied access to their anticipated pensions due to an administrative error by an agency of the Ministry of Defence. In the light of the recent decision, will the Minister reconsider these cases and see what can be done across government to put this right?

Anna Soubry: The short answer is yes. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on his constituent’s case. He can be assured that I am aware of the ruling. Consideration is being given by lawyers from both the MOD and the Department for Work and Pensions. I am very happy to continue to work with him and to help his constituent.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State not concerned about what has happened in Georgia and Mr Putin’s record of expansion towards the rest of Europe? Does that not worry him? This is a time when the Government are weak on the European Union, in their relationships across Europe and in their partnerships in NATO. Are they not the worst Government? They are allowing Britain to sleep—[Interruption.] They do not like to hear it, Mr Speaker. They are allowing Britain to sleep and they are a Government who remind me of the age of Neville Chamberlain.

Michael Fallon: There was a reference earlier to Captain Mainwaring and I think the answer to the hon. Gentleman is, “Stupid boy.” That is not the position. We are a predominant member of NATO and I am as concerned as anybody by the actions of President Putin in destabilising eastern Ukraine and annexing Crimea. The northern members of NATO discussed that last week in the Oslo meeting and we are determined to continue a programme of large-scale exercises involving multiple countries in the territories of the eastern members of NATO precisely to provide reassurance to those countries and to deter Russia from any further aggression.

Bob Blackman: My hon. Friend recently signed an £800 million contract for the development of a state-of-the-art radar system for the Eurofighter Typhoon. What are the implications of that decision for the protection of our skies and for British jobs?

Philip Dunne: The contract signed last week in Edinburgh is a major step forward in developing radar capability for the Eurofighter Typhoon. It will increase operational effectiveness by simultaneously tracking air and ground targets at range. It also represents a significant investment in the UK defence industry, sustaining jobs in BAE Systems in Lancashire and in the whole radar supply chain, including some 500 jobs in Scotland, half of
	which are for highly skilled engineers, which would not have happened in the same way had Scotland voted to leave the United Kingdom.

Barry Gardiner: The construction costs for the second aircraft carrier have been identified within the MOD equipment budget. However, Government Front Benchers have been reluctant to identify the operational costs. As well as having a second carrier, would it not be a good idea to be able to put it into operation? Will they take this opportunity to clarify the position?

Philip Dunne: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to explain once again to the House that it is this Government who have decided to make both carriers operational, unlike the previous Government, who were going to leave the second one tied up. The Ministry of Defence is now conducting a detailed analysis to develop how best to utilise the capability, including man power and aircraft numbers, which will become clear as part of the strategic defence and security review 2015.

John Baron: In addition to Army Reserve numbers going backwards over the past 18 months, recent answers to written parliamentary questions show that there has been no improvement in the age profile of the existing Territorial Army/Reserve, with the average age of the infantryman being stuck at 35 and the average age of senior non-commissioned officers and junior officers being in the 40s. Why are the Government not tackling that?

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his question. On his premise, I remind him that over the past six months numbers have been moving firmly in the right direction as a result of the upturn in recruiting. On his question about age, I make no apology for a reserve force recruiting some older people, especially ex-regulars, who bring much experience. Fitness is a major requirement for all those people, and it is this Government who over the past few years have re-established a common standard for fitness across regulars and reservists.

Angus Robertson: In the 2010 SDSR the UK Government committed to reducing the number of launch tubes from 12 to eight. A recent opinion poll issued by the US navy states that the American firm General Dynamics will build 12 Trident missile launch tubes for a successor UK submarine, something that has not yet been approved by this Parliament. Is that true? If so, why has the House not been informed, and why do we need to learn about it from US navy press releases?

Philip Dunne: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, this Government have committed to spend up to £3 billion on the successor deterrent system, and that includes some preparatory work for the common missile compartment. There is nothing new in that announcement.

Martin Horwood: With 1,000 people killed since the Minsk accord in Ukraine, with up to 1 million displaced and with NATO countries such as Lithuania looking as though they might be prepared to be more deeply involved, can we be told what the latest
	news is from the European monitoring team on the state of the ceasefire and the risk of escalation involving NATO countries?

Michael Fallon: I will ensure that the Foreign Office updates my hon. Friend on the latest status of the monitoring. The best answer we can give is to make it absolutely clear that the sanctions will stay in place and, if there is any further destabilisation of Ukraine, they should be increased. In the meantime, it is important that all NATO members keep up their defence spending and commit to the very high readiness taskforce that was agreed at the NATO summit.

Eilidh Whiteford: I have pressed Ministers previously about the increase in pension age for MOD police and firefighters, who merely want parity with their civilian counterparts. Will Ministers look at this again given the very high costs associated with redeploying older workers and people having to be retired early on heath grounds?

Anna Soubry: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Negotiations continue, but the MOD Police Federation takes the view that it is looking for retirement at 65. It is not quite as simple as straight parity with the civilian forces, but we continue to negotiate with everyone.

Bob Stewart: As a friend of the Forces Children’s Trust, which you, Mr Speaker, very kindly host in your apartments every year, may I ask the Secretary of State whether the children of service widows will have a guaranteed pension until the age of 18 despite the fact that their mothers may have remarried?

Anna Soubry: I do not know if I can give an answer to that; it is a new one on me, if I may say so. No doubt my hon. Friend will want to discuss it further with me, and I am more than happy to do so. Again, this is where the power of the covenant comes in, because if people can establish a disadvantage, then the covenant can deliver justice.

Frank Roy: Today in Craigneuk in my constituency, the first sod will be cut on the building of new homes for ex-service personnel. Will the Minister join me in congratulating all the local volunteers who have been working so hard to ensure that this much-needed project goes ahead?

Anna Soubry: Absolutely. I congratulate my hon. Friend—I hope he does not mind me calling him that; he knows exactly what I mean, because he is a friend in this regard—on the work that he is doing to support such great schemes. These schemes are doing remarkably good work, not only in delivering better homes but, invariably, enabling the veterans who get involved to learn skills and helping those who have been damaged in any way to restore themselves and get back into the world of work.

Andrew Robathan: I read in the media that the greatest threat to the United Kingdom is considered to be so-called Islamic State and jihadism. While I am not a great fan of deploying troops to Syria, does the Secretary of State believe that
	NATO, the western powers or the coalition in Iraq—whomsoever—should be reassessing the help they are giving in Syria and in Iraq to defeat Islamic State?

Michael Fallon: The Prime Minister has made it clear that ISIL can only be defeated both in Iraq and in Syria. There are now some 50 countries involved in a huge international and regional effort to support the Iraqi and Kurdish forces in their action against ISIL in Iraq, but we also have to consider what more can be done in Syria. We support the United States in its strike missions in Syria, and we are looking at what more can be done to train moderate Syrian elements outside Syria itself.

Dan Jarvis: May I commend to Ministers the film “Kajaki”? It is a brutal but brilliant account of soldiering on the front line in Afghanistan, and, as such, should be seen by all in this House. Will the Secretary of State consider going to see the film?

Michael Fallon: I understand the importance of the film, which conveys very dramatically the very difficult circumstances that our forces had to overcome. I will certainly take the hon. Gentleman up on that suggestion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are short of time—indeed, out of time—but we must accommodate Jackie Doyle-Price, who has been standing for a long time.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As we approach the 200th anniversary of Gurkha service in the British Army, will my hon. Friend look with sympathy on the recommendations made by the all-party group on Gurkha welfare so that we do right by these veterans of the British Army too?

Anna Soubry: A short yes is the answer to that, but I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her group for the fantastic work that they have done and the excellent report they produced.

Mr Speaker: I do not like seeing patient colleagues disappointed, so let us speed on. I call Mr Alan Reid.

Alan Reid: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that negotiations with defence police and firefighters are still ongoing, but time is running out because the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 comes into effect on 1 April. Will my hon. Friend ensure that these negotiations are concluded to the satisfaction of both sides well before then?

Anna Soubry: Yes, we need to make good progress and we need to make it quickly.

Oliver Colvile: What are the base-porting arrangements for the remaining Trafalgar class submarines?

Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend has been pressing me on this issue for some time and I can confirm today that while the Clyde will become our main submarine base from 2020, HMS Torbay and HMS Trenchant, which
	are both due to decommission shortly, will remain at Devonport in order to minimise disruption to their crews and the crews’ families.

Mr Speaker: I am taking a relaxed attitude, the House should know, because there is protected time for subsequent business and I cannot bear to see colleagues disappointed unnecessarily.

Crispin Blunt: How much has been spent on advertising to support the current reserve recruitment, and how much is budgeted to be spent on advertising in future?

Julian Brazier: I shall have to write to my hon. Friend in order to give him a full answer.

Peter Luff: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this unexpected boon. As he prepares for next year’s SDSR, may I commend my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary on the merits of
	an open and inclusive process that maximises the involvement of the public, Parliament, industry and academics?

Michael Fallon: I certainly welcome that suggestion. I think there should be a wide-ranging process. The point I made earlier was that we cannot start the review now in 2014—it is scheduled for 2015—but it is important, obviously, that we consult widely when it gets under way, not least with our international allies.

Julian Lewis: In welcoming the announcement about war widows, may I ask whether it is the case that a war widow who lost her widow’s pension on remarriage but who has subsequently become single again is eligible to have it reinstated and never taken away under any circumstances thereafter?

Anna Soubry: I believe the answer is yes, but I have to be cautious and say that if I am wrong I will, of course, inform both the House and my hon. Friend.

Points of Order

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 4 November, I tabled a written question to the Home Secretary, asking how many Libyan service personnel who received training in the UK had claimed asylum. I received a reply on 17 November saying that it was not the policy of the Home Office, hiding behind the Data Protection Act, to disclose personal information. On 18 November, I tabled a similar question, only to be told that it would not be possible to answer the question in the time available. Today the Defence Secretary has confirmed that a handful of personnel have actually claimed asylum. Does he think that the Home Office’s replies are acceptable, and how would he suggest that we go about getting an answer with the actual numbers who have claimed asylum?

Mr Speaker: Of course, that is not a matter for me. When the hon. Gentleman asks whether “he” can advise on this or that, I assume he means me. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not expect the Secretary of State to criticise one of his ministerial colleagues—the Secretary of State will not do that. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, in so far as he requires my protection or advice, is that he needs to pursue his usual approach, which is to be a busy bee. He should table questions and, in a legitimate, parliamentary sense, nag. In my experience of the hon. Gentleman, he requires no encouragement to do just that.

Julian Huppert: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In exchanges on Friday, the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), told me with regard to the privatisation of Hinchingbrooke hospital in Cambridgeshire that
	“when the previous Government left office there were three bidders, one of which was an NHS provider, so he really needs to get his facts straight”—[Official Report, 21 November 2014; Vol. 588, c. 575.]
	I have checked the facts with the National Audit Office, the strategic health authority at the time and the press, and the three bidders still in place when the shadow Health Secretary left office were Circle, Ramsay Health Care and Serco, which are hardly NHS providers. Indeed, none of the final five was. Could you provide an opportunity, Mr Speaker, for the shadow Health Secretary to correct the record so as to avoid misleading the House on this important issue?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I hope he will understand if I do not wish to intrude into what is becoming a protracted debate between him and the shadow Health Secretary, who responded by e-mail to the hon. Gentleman at 1.46 pm and 23 seconds today. I just have a sense that there is an ongoing debate and dispute between the two of them and it would be unseemly for me to intrude in that continuing argument. We will leave it there.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that you will not consider this a “Stupid boy” point of order, but something on which you can give me some advice. Fairly recently, I
	have noticed more and more references made to right hon. and gallant or hon. and gallant Members, and I have tried to find out who is and who is not gallant. I served in the cadet force at school, but I am told that even if a Member without a commission—an ordinary soldier—had won the Victoria Cross, he would still not be called “gallant” because it applies only to officers. Will you clear up who is and who is not gallant in that sense?

Mr Speaker: There is no difference between commissioned and non-commissioned for this purpose. Beyond that, I would tell the hon. Gentleman, to whom I would never intend any discourtesy, that the decision whether to use the term—the newly appointed Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), chooses to do so—is purely a matter of taste. If memory serves, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), was himself partial to using the term, and I think it has been used in relation to him as well. It is a matter of parliamentary taste. I am sure that we all intend to show good taste to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), as he is now in his 35th year of parliamentary service.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask, while members of the Defence team are still in their places, whether you have been informed that we are in sight of having the statement or debate on the ending of the campaign in Afghanistan, and the lessons to be drawn from that, which we were promised a little while ago?

Michael Fallon: indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: I was not aware that we were, but the nod of the Secretary of State’s head perhaps provides the hon. Gentleman and the House with the succour that he sought.

Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You very kindly referred to me as potentially gallant—I am not sure whether that is right—but I do not think that we ought to take this practice too far. I am sure you would agree, Sir, that we should not extend it to former members of cadet forces.

Mr Speaker: Something tells me, innocent soul that I am, that the right hon. Gentleman, with that rather puckish grin, was having a bit of a dig.

Andrew Robathan: No, no.

Mr Speaker: I will just say that the right hon. Gentleman has made his point with his usual force and eloquence, and it is on the record.

Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: The day would not be complete without a further point of order.

David Winnick: rose—

Mr Speaker: Oh—without further points of order. We must take them.

David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I say, with due modesty—[Laughter.] Characteristic modesty, should I say? Despite my two years’ national service, I do not wish to be referred to as “gallant”?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has never sought any particular acknowledgment. I do not want to embarrass him, because this is something of a tribute to him, but he is the only Member of the House I have ever come across who has phoned the organisers of a parliamentary awards competition to protest at his inclusion on the shortlist and to demand his removal. He certainly cannot be accused of seeking prizes or special recognition, and I respect that.

Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. While the traditional practice of referring to those who have served as gallant Members may have fallen into desuetude, surely at this present time—when the nation has been committed to military options, and there is seriously enhanced concern for the well-being of members of our armed forces—there is a purpose in maintaining the tradition. It indicates that many right hon. and hon. Members across the House—I see that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), in particular, is in his place—have served themselves, which sends out a message to the nation. I am a traditionalist, but surely tradition serves the House and the nation in this case.

Mr Speaker: Members may agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why they deploy the term. I certainly could not disagree with the latter part of the point of order. Indeed, the word “traditional” could have been invented to describe him, and he is none the worse for that. I thank him for what he has said.

Mark Francois: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I hope that it is the last one.

Mark Francois: This topic allows me to mention to you, Mr Speaker, that just fewer than 60 Members of this House have served in the armed forces at some point, either in the regulars or the reserves. That is almost one in 10 Members of the House of Commons. We hold a service every year for veteran MPs, so that they have an opportunity to pay tribute to the fallen. We had one recently, which some 30 colleagues attended. I apologise to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) because he was not on the list. We will rectify that and invite him next year. I very much hope that he will be minded to come.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Minister for that.

Diana Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order that the Prime Minister has made an announcement to the Australian Parliament about a future counter-terrorism Bill and the Home Secretary has, this morning, made a detailed speech about the contents of that Bill before it has been announced to this House?

Mr Speaker: I have not yet read the Home Secretary’s speech, although that delight awaits me ere long. I feel sure that if a significant policy announcement is contained therein, she will want to communicate it to the House sooner rather than later. If, for some reason, that does not happen—it seems to me inconceivable that it will not—the hon. Lady is experienced in the use of parliamentary devices to ensure that Ministers are held to account in a timely way on the Floor of the House.
	We will leave it there. I am grateful to colleagues for their very full appetite for points of order today.

Recall of MPs Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Committee

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Recall condition: method of petitioning an election court

‘(1) This section applies when persons allege conduct by an MP which constitutes misconduct in the office of member of parliament.
	(2) A petition under this section may be presented if signed by at least five hundred persons who are registered as electors in the constituency of the MP named in the petition.
	(3) The petition shall be in the prescribed form, state the prescribed matters and be signed by all the petitioners, and shall be presented to the High Court, or to the Court of Session, or to the High Court of Northern Ireland, depending on whether the constituency to which it relates is in England and Wales, or Scotland or Northern Ireland.
	(4) The petition shall be presented by delivering it to the prescribed officer or otherwise dealing with it in the prescribed manner; and the prescribed officer shall send a copy of it forthwith to The Speaker and to the MP therein named.
	(5) The election court shall be constituted as if it were constituted under section c123 (constitution of election court and place of trial) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, and sections 124 and 126 of that Act shall apply as if were so constituted.
	(6) “Prescribed” has the same meaning as in section 185 (Interpretation of Part III) of the Representation of the People Act 1983.’—(Dr Huppert.)
	This new Clause establishes a further recall condition or trigger, independent of Parliament or criminal conviction, whereby five hundred or more constituents may petition an election court alleging improper behaviour on the part of their MP.
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Julian Huppert: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 3—Recall condition: consideration by election court—
	‘(1) This section applies when a petition alleging conduct by an MP which constitutes misconduct in the office of member of parliament has been received by an election court as properly presented under section (The third recall condition: method of petitioning an election court).
	(2) The court may consider such conduct wherever it is committed, and whether or not it is committed directly in carrying out the office of member of parliament.
	(3) The court must examine evidence adduced of misconduct, and any evidence produced in rebuttal by the MP.
	(4) The court must consider whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is reasonable to believe that the MP has misconducted himself or herself, to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the MP, without reasonable excuse or justification.
	(5) If the court considers, on the basis of such evidence, that the allegation of misconduct is—
	(a) not supported by the evidence; or
	(b) trivial or vexatious in nature; or
	(c) brought for party political purposes;
	then the court must dismiss the petition.
	(6) If the decision of the court is that the alleged behaviour is such as to satisfy subsection (4), then it must notify The Speaker that it has so determined.
	(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting any provision of the Bill of Rights 1689.’
	This new Clause establishes the process by which constituents’ allegations of improper behaviour by an MP may be considered and adjudged. It provides for fair and due process and seeks to avoid conflict with the provisions of the Bill of Rights.
	New clause 4—MP’s pledge—
	‘(1) Each MP shall at the start of each Parliament subscribe to the Pledge set out in this section.
	(2) An MP subscribing to the Pledge may do so—
	(a) in writing; or
	(b) in person at the same time as taking the Oath required by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866.
	(3) The Pledge shall be—
	“I solemnly undertake that, in the course of my duties as a Member of Parliament and service to my constituency, I shall act in adherence with the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament and uphold the standards of public life with selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.”’
	New clause 5—Complaint of breach of MP’s pledge—
	‘(1) This section applies when persons complain that an MP has acted in a way that represents a significant breach of the MP’s Pledge as set out in section (MP’s Pledge).
	(2) A petition containing a complaint under subsection (1) may be presented to the electoral court if signed by at least five hundred persons on the electoral roll within the constituency of the MP named in the petition.
	(3) The Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe—
	(a) the form, content and process relating to the submission of such petitions; and
	(b) the manner of constitution of an electoral court to adjudicate.
	(4) The electoral court must examine evidence submitted of the alleged breach of the MP’s Pledge, and any evidence produced in rebuttal by the MP.
	(5) The court must consider whether, on the balance of evidence, it is reasonable to believe that the MP has acted in a way that amounts to a significant breach of the MP’s Pledge, without reasonable excuse or justification.
	(6) If the court finds in favour of the petitioners, then it must notify the Speaker, and the MP named in the petition, that it has so determined.
	(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting any provision of the Bill of Rights 1689.”’
	Amendment 1,in clause 1, page1,line4, leave out “the first or second” and insert “a”.
	This amendment provides for a further recall condition but is neutral if no such condition or conditions are agreed to.
	Amendment 14,page1,line18, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	‘(4) The second recall condition is that, following on from a report from the Committee on Standards, the House of Commons order the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of requisite length.
	(4A) A specified period is of requisite length for the purposes of subsection (4) if—
	(a) where the period is expressed as a number of sitting days, the period specified is of at least 10 sitting days, or
	(b) in any other case, the period specified (however expressed) is a period of at least 14 days.’
	Amendment 2,page2,line9, at end insert—
	‘( ) A further recall condition (misconduct in the office of member of parliament) is that—
	(a) an election court has considered a petition claiming that the MP has committed an act which constitutes misconduct in the office of member of parliament; and
	(b) the court has determined, prima facie, that it is reasonable to believe such an act may have been committed; and
	(c) the court has notified The Speaker of its decision under subsection (b).’
	This amendment provides for a further recall condition.
	Amendment 15,page2,line9, at end insert—
	‘( ) A further recall condition (misconduct in public office) is that—
	(a) the MP has, after becoming an MP, been convicted of the common law offence of misconduct in public office, and
	(b) the appeal period expires without the conviction having been overturned on appeal.
	Sections 2 to 4 contain more about this recall condition.’
	This amendment provides for a further recall condition.
	Amendment 24,page2,line9, at end insert—
	‘( ) A further recall condition (section 10) is that—
	(a) the MP has, after becoming an MP, been convicted of an offence under section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (offence of providing false or misleading information for allowances claims);
	(b) the appeal period expires without the conviction having been overturned on appeal.
	Sections 2 to 4 contain more about this recall condition.’
	This amendment provides for a further recall condition.
	Amendment 34,page2,line9, at end insert—
	‘( ) A further recall condition is that the MP has been adjudged by an election court (as set out in section (Complaint of breach of MP’s Pledge)) to have acted in a way that is contrary to the MP’s Pledge as set out in section (MP’s Pledge)’.
	This amendment provides for a further recall condition.
	Amendment 16,in clause 2, page2,line18, leave out “The reference in” and insert “In”.
	This amendment and amendment 17 ensure that a recall petition may be triggered by an offence committed before the day Clause 1 comes into force where an MP is convicted of the offence on or after that day and after he or she last became an MP.
	Amendment 25,page2,line18, leave out “(the first recall condition)” and insert
	“and ( ) (the first and section 10 recall conditions)”.
	This amendment ensures that the provision made in Clause 2 in relation to the first recall condition regarding offences committed before, and convictions on or after, the commencement of Clause 1 also applies to the section 10 recall condition.
	Amendment 17,page2,line18, leave out from “to an offence” to the end of the subsection and insert—
	‘(a) the reference to an offence includes an offence committed before the MP became an MP and an offence committed before the day on which section 1 comes into force, but
	(b) the reference to an MP being convicted of an offence is only to an MP being convicted of an offence on or after that day.’
	Amendment 26,page2,line21, at end insert—
	‘( ) The reference in section 1(3) to an offence does not include an offence mentioned in section 1(5A).’
	Amendment 27,in clause 3, page2,line43, leave out “(the first recall condition)” and insert “and (5A) (the first and section 10 recall conditions)”.
	Amendment 28,page3,line3, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
	‘( ) “Relevant appeal”, in relation to the first recall condition, means—
	(a) an appeal that—
	(i) is in respect of the conviction, sentence or order mentioned in section 1(3), and
	(ii) is brought within the usual period, or
	(b) an appeal that—
	(i) is in respect of the determination of an appeal that was itself a relevant appeal, and
	(ii) is brought within the usual period.
	( ) “Relevant appeal”, in relation to the section 10 recall condition, means—
	(a) an appeal that—
	(i) is in respect of the conviction mentioned in section 1(5A) or of any sentence or order imposed in relation to that conviction, and
	(ii) is brought within the usual period, or
	(b) an appeal that—
	(i) is in respect of the determination of an appeal that was itself a relevant appeal, and
	(ii) is brought within the usual period.’
	Amendment 29,in clause 4, page3,line34, after second “MP” insert—
	‘(a) ‘.
	Amendment 30,page3,line36, at end insert
	‘, or
	(b) is convicted of an offence mentioned in section 1( ) (relating to the section 10 recall condition) within the meaning of that provision (see section 2).’
	Amendment 31,page3,line37, after “order”, insert “in relation to the conviction”.
	Amendment 32,page4,line4, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	‘(b) that—
	(i) in a case within subsection (1)(a), the conviction, sentence or order has, or has not, been overturned on appeal;
	(ii) in a case within subsection (1)(b), the conviction has, or has not, been overturned on appeal, and’.
	Amendment 3,in clause 5, page4,line16, leave out “the first or second” and insert “a”.
	This amendment provides for a further recall condition.
	Amendment 18,page4,line16, leave out “or second” and insert “, second or section 10”.
	This amendment is consequential to the agreement to the section 10 recall 
	condition
	.
	Amendment 19,page4,line43, after “first”, insert “or section 10”.
	Amendment 4,in clause 9, page6,line36, after “10 per cent.”, insert
	‘in a case in which either the first or second recall conditions have been met, and 15 per cent. in a case in which the misconduct in the office of member of parliament recall condition has been met’.
	Amendment 5,page6,line38, after “10 per cent.”, insert
	‘in a case in which either the first or second recall conditions have been met, and 15 per cent. in a case in which the misconduct in the office of member of parliament recall condition has been met’.
	This amendment increases the support required for a valid misconduct in the office of member of parliament recall petition, following the steps proposed in New Clauses (method of petitioning an election court) and (consideration by election court), due to the “reasonable to believe” test to be used by the election court.
	Amendment 20,in clause 13, page9,line10, at end insert—
	‘( ) The fourth condition is that, in a case in which the section 10 recall condition was met in relation to the MP, the conviction in question is overturned on appeal.’
	Amendment 6,page9,line10, at end insert—
	‘( ) The fourth condition is that, in a case in which a misconduct recall condition was met in relation to the MP, the MP is subsequently charged with an offence, the penalty for which may be imprisonment or an order to be imprisoned or detained, for the conduct, or any part of the conduct, stated in the petition to the electoral court.’
	This amendment seeks to reduce the risk of double jeopardy.
	Amendment 21,page9,line13, leave out “three”.
	Amendment 7,in clause 14, page9,line41, leave out “at least 10 per cent of the number of eligible registered electors” and insert—
	‘(a) in a case in which either the first or second recall condition is met, at least 10 per cent. of the number of eligible electors; and
	(b) in a case in which the [misconduct in the office of Member of Parliament] recall condition is met, at least 15 per cent. of the number of eligible electors.’
	This amendment increases the support required for a valid (misconduct in the office of Member of Parliament) recall petition, following the steps proposed in New Clauses (method of petitioning an election court) and (consideration by election court), due to the “reasonable to believe” test to be used by the election court.
	Amendment 8,in clause 22, page14,line29, at end insert—
	‘“misconduct in the office of Member of Parliament” means conduct by an MP, whether or not it is committed directly in carrying out the office of member of parliament, which is misconduct to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the MP, without reasonable excuse or justification.’
	This amendment establishes an offence of improper behaviour on the part of an MP, using the definition of the English common law offence “misconduct in public office” as its starting point.
	Amendment 22,page14,line33, after ‘appeal”’, insert
	‘, in relation to the first recall condition,’.

Julian Huppert: May I apologise to the House for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—not yet a right hon. Member, despite the praise that was heaped on him in Committee—who is currently acting as our trade envoy in Africa and is unable to be here? My apology is that Members will have to put up with me arguing the case, rather than him.
	This is an important Bill. It delivers on the manifesto commitments of most of the parties in this House in some way or another. It means that it will be possible for MPs who are sent to prison to be recalled, no matter how long they are in prison, and that MPs who are suspended by this House for long enough may also be subject to recall.
	However, the Bill has rightly been criticised for allowing MPs to mark their own homework, as it were. Unless there is a jail sentence—a threshold that was not mentioned in the manifesto commitments of any party in this House—it is ultimately us who will have to decide whether someone has behaved so badly that they should be subject to recall.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) —it is good to see him in his place—proposed one solution to that problem in Committee, but many of us felt that it would have caused more problems than it solved. There was a concern that it might lead to trivial or vexatious complaints, or complaints based on political or policy differences, rather than complaints about genuine misconduct. There was extensive debate about that in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and I proposed another route, by which a court would assess whether there were grounds reasonably to believe that an MP could have committed a common law offence of misconduct in public office. If there were, that would lead to the same recall process as the Government have described for those who are suspended or sentenced to jail. That amendment was tricky to write. We were clear in Committee that there were technical challenges in writing it. We therefore did not press it to a vote at that time.
	We were encouraged by the cross-party support for our proposal. For example, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), said that he was drawn to our ideas and that:
	“In principle, giving the power to the people to bring a case against their MP before the election court is a good idea.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 134.]
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) said that our proposals
	“have appeal because they enable a public trigger that is still based around wrongdoing.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 77.]
	It is good to see both Opposition spokesmen here.
	We also had support from the Government. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), said that he had
	“a great deal of sympathy with the thinking behind the amendments”. —[Official Report, 27 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 98.]
	The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), praised it as an “interesting idea” that should be returned to on Report. That is what we are doing now.
	I had hoped that the Government would take over the work of doing the drafting and that we would now be looking at Government amendments that had all the benefit of parliamentary counsel’s detailed advice. Sadly, that is not the case. Indeed, it is striking that not a single Government amendment has been tabled for debate today—not even those of a technical nature to fix the errors that were highlighted in Committee.

Richard Fuller: My hon. Friend has managed to shower his proposal with praise from a number of people. May I demur from that and ask, at this time when the public rightly have a lot of frustration with the establishment—be it the political elite or other
	elites—what is the benefit of including the judicial elite in determining issues that should rightfully belong to the people?

Julian Huppert: I am wary of straying into the debate we had in Committee because there was a huge amount of discussion about that and the House reached a decision. It is about finding a balance and ensuring that we avoid trivial or vexatious cases, while capturing the power for the public. The other deficiency in the proposals by the hon. Member for Richmond Park was that it was a complex, multi-stage process—possibly too complex to be workable. I respect his views and those of many Members who supported him, but that amendment was defeated by the House and we are trying an alternative approach.

David Burrowes: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about extending the scope of recall. I declare an interest as a lawyer, but would not new clauses 2 and 3 be a charter particularly for lawyers, meaning that the system becomes unduly litigious? That will detract from the original intention of recall, which is to give real power to the people.

Julian Huppert: I am not a lawyer; I dropped out of studying law after my first year because my exams coincided with the general election, so I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in how litigious lawyers can be and how they will seek to make money out of whatever proposals there may be. I do not agree, however, that the new clauses will lead to a huge amount of litigation, so allow me to outline how I think they would work. If the hon. Gentleman has proposals for improving the Bill, I would be happy to hear them.
	No Government amendment contains all the required measures, so my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and I worked on the amendments and adjusted them in the light of criticisms from right hon. and hon. Members across the House. Although we do not have the Government’s seal of approval, we believe this is a workable approach that can, if necessary, be tweaked in another place, which has more specialist constitutional lawyers than this House. We feel that we should not simply hand the Bill over to the Lords unamended and say, “Try to sort the whole thing out”, without giving them a strong steer. Recall applies to Members of this House; the other place can consider the detail, but it should not be considering the principles.
	Our proposed option would be in addition to triggers already in the Bill and would mean that 500 electors could sign a petition alleging misconduct by an MP. An election court would hear evidence of that misconduct and any rebuttal by the MP, and decide
	“whether, on the basis of the evidence, it is reasonable to believe that the MP has misconducted himself or herself, to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the MP, without reasonable excuse or justification.”
	If the court upheld the allegation, that would act as another trigger for a recall petition in the same way as a suspension by the standards Committee of this House would do. However, because there would have been no proof of misconduct, only evidence of reasonable belief, we would require a slightly higher hurdle for the petition—15% rather than 10% of the electorate. That change is
	one of a number that we introduced, and we hope that the new clauses answer the criticisms that were made.
	Let me highlight our other changes. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) both felt that 100 petitioners, as in the original proposal, was too low a number and too easy to achieve, so we increased that to 500. We are not keen to go higher because the court’s role in ruling out unsubstantiated trivial or vexatious cases is best before the complaint has built up a large head of steam. Otherwise, it rather obviates the point of the later petition phase, which needs 15% of the electorate. The provision also simplifies the rules on expenses. Five hundred is a substantial barrier to a small or trivial claim—one annoyed individual, for example—but not if there is a real sense among the public that an MP has done something wrong.
	The hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Liverpool, West Derby pointed out one serious flaw in our previous drafting—my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome was explicit about this. We were trying to apply the common law offence of misconduct in public office to Members representing Scotland and Northern Ireland, where that common law offence does not apply. We sought to get around that by stipulating that courts would act as though the offence were in England and Wales, on the basis that the House is in England, but that was inelegant and we accept that it was flawed. We solved the problem by specifying in the Bill the definition to be used, which is taken from the Attorney-General’s advice on common law in England and Wales. We are therefore no longer asking a court to determine anything based on a jurisdiction that is not its own, and we can still benefit from existing case law for that wording.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the House, when in Committee, was sympathetic to the view that there should be a mechanism by which members of the public in a constituency are able to initiate a recall process, but it has to be one that we understand will work. Is the test, which the new clause intends to apply, analogous to the offence of misconduct in public office, or is it something less than that? If it is that, why will it not, if a court determines there is prima facie evidence, trigger a prosecution?

Julian Huppert: The wording is exactly the wording there would be for misconduct. First, that offence does not exist in Scotland or Northern Ireland. I will come on to that later with an example, but there are some issues. We would want Members to be equal, broadly speaking, regardless of where they have been elected from. The other issue is that although the offence of misconduct in public office is used quite regularly against police officers—there are a number of other cases—it has never actually been used against a Member of Parliament. There is a question of whether we trust the Crown Prosecution Service to be the deciding factor, particularly when there could be questions about how it would interact with various Members and Ministers.

David Burrowes: Drawing on the previous intervention and my point about litigation, does this not then become a shadow trial in a line to what perhaps should be a
	criminal trial in relation to the common law offence? That is the danger, because we are raising not only a civil but criminal liability that may become very protracted and not lead to the end result of a proper recall process.

Julian Huppert: We have put in provisions so that, in the event of criminal proceedings, they would take precedence and the recall process would be stayed while that was happening, so I think we have addressed that. As I will go on to say, there is a very similar model already in use in the US and that does not seem to have the same sorts of problems that the hon. Gentleman describes.
	On other changes we have made, the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for Liverpool, West Derby were concerned about a phrase we included relating to gross dereliction of duty as an MP perhaps being considered as misconduct in public office. They both highlighted the point that there is no definition of our duties as Members of this House. We accept that point and have removed it from the revised amendment. However, I think there is general agreement in the House that there should be some provision in the code of conduct to deal with that. The well-known case of the Member of Parliament who spent most of his time running a pub in Ireland is not one that I think any of us would consider acceptable or wish to see emulated. We should try to ensure that the code of conduct is updated so that, for example, an MP who chose not to attend the House for months or years on end with no good reason, could not continue in that way. Local councils have a rule that councillors have to attend a meeting within six months, with a provision for extensions when there is good reason, for example illness.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman touches on non-attendance. Labour Members supported the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, which makes attendance compulsory at least once a Session. What does he say to those MPs from Northern Ireland who choose not to take their seats, but whose electorate understand fully that that is their principled position?

Julian Huppert: First, just because somebody can be recalled does not mean they would automatically be recalled. How to phrase that in the code would be an interesting question. Trying to have repeated recalls of those Members would be a somewhat futile and repetitive exercise, as it was with the case of Charles Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton. He was elected three times as an atheist and refused to take a religious oath. The rules were eventually changed because it was made quite clear that his electorate wanted him. I think that, in the case of the Members the hon. Gentleman is referring to, there would have to be some sort of accommodation that there would not be recall elections for that process.

Mark Durkan: rose—

Julian Huppert: That may be addressed by the proposals from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who I suspect is about to say that.

Mark Durkan: What would be the hon. Gentleman’s guarantee that nobody’s constituents in Northern Ireland would be prone to engage in a futile or repetitive exercise?

Julian Huppert: I would certainly give no guarantee of that kind. It is important to say that the proposals we are making at the moment do not deal with this issue. I am suggesting that the code of conduct should be updated. I am very happy to have a discussion on the details of that, but it is not germane in detail to this amendment—they are separate processes.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: New clause 3(7) reads:
	“Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting any provision of the Bill of Rights 1689.”
	However, if the House of Commons were to introduce a new code of conduct and that were to be interpreted by—effectively—an election court, would it not risk contravening the Bill of Rights?

Julian Huppert: As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point, but the new clause does not suggest changes to the code of conduct or making it subject to court proceedings, so his point does not apply to this new clause.
	I think that new clause 2 has been substantially improved to address the criticisms levelled in Committee —we can have the discussion about the code of conduct at another appropriate time. Furthermore, as I said earlier, it is not a unique proposal. The state of Minnesota has a similar scheme under which 25 petitioners submit a proposed recall petition stating the grounds for the recall, whether it be malfeasance, non-feasance or serious crime; and a public hearing is held by a judge within 21 days who then reports to the Supreme Court on the test of
	“whether the persons proposing the petition have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the factual allegations supporting the petition are true; and…if so, whether the persons proposing the petition have shown that the facts found to be true are sufficient grounds for issuing a recall petition.”
	This then leads to the recall petition, in which case the system requires the signatures of voters equalling 25% of the most recent turnout, which is roughly the same as the 15% we are proposing. This system exists, therefore, and it seems to work, as shown by its operation since it was introduced in 1996.

John Redwood: How does the hon. Gentleman answer the criticism that the whole point of recall is to give power to the people but that his system gives power to judges?

Julian Huppert: It still starts with 500 people and ends with 15% of the public making the decision. We have to strike a balance—we discussed this in Committee, and I do not want to give a blow-by-blow account of that very long debate—over whether there should be any constraints at all and whether there can be any trivial or vexatious cases. That is the difference.
	In Minnesota, several cases have been deemed to be unreasonable. The two most recent cases involved State Representatives Ward and Radinovich, both of whom
	supported same-sex marriage against the wishes of their constituents, and in both cases, the court concluded that it did not constitute malfeasance, saying:
	“Constituent disagreement with how their elected representative exercised discretion, through public statements made or votes taken, does not equate to malfeasance by the representative.”
	That is surely a principle the House would want to stick to.
	In 2001, the state attorney-general did not take steps to ensure that a ban on sodomy was not struck down—again there were complaints, but the court did not conclude that he had failed to do his job; and in 1999, Governor Jesse Ventura was accused of having done well out of his book by virtue of being governor, but again the court felt the accusation was unsubstantiated and struck it out.

Thomas Docherty: It has been brought to my attention that earlier today the hon. Gentleman published an article on Lib Dem Voice about his test stating:
	“This test of “reasonable to believe” puts the burden clearly on the MP to disprove beyond doubt the allegations against him or her in the first instance.”
	Now, he takes a clear and principled stance on terrorism legislation, so some of us are surprised he is reversing the burden here. Is he not contradicting himself by leaving it up to the MP to disprove the allegation, rather than the petitioners to prove it?

Julian Huppert: I will have to check the wording of the article—[Interruption.] Sorry, I am not challenging the hon. Gentleman; it is possible, in writing it so speedily, that I miswrote it, because that is certainly not what it ought to say. That is not how it ought to work, and if I wrote that, it was my mistake and I apologise to him and anyone else who read it. I will check it as soon as I have a chance.
	The system in Minnesota, which is similar to what we are suggesting, seems to work. Our proposal would protect MPs from trivial recall petitions, but allow the public a route, not mediated by the House, to recall MPs who have committed misconduct. I hope, therefore, that the House will support new clauses 2 and 3, along with the consequential amendments, when I put them later today.
	I wish to turn briefly to the other amendments in the group, many of which are in my name and that of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and others.

Andrew Lansley: Before my hon. Friend moves on to other amendments, I would find it helpful if he explained whether new clause 3(1), which says that the conduct that has to be alleged by the petitioners to a court must constitute
	“misconduct in the office of member of parliament”,
	is consistent with subsection (2), which says:
	“The court may consider…conduct…whether or not it is committed directly in carrying out the office of member of parliament.”
	We would be in the curious position where conduct unrelated to the office of a Member of Parliament and duties consequent on that office might be used to allege misconduct in that office. Is that not contradictory?

Julian Huppert: I think the right hon. Gentleman’s point is answered by amendment 8, which has a fuller definition of misconduct. I hope he will have a chance to take a look at that precise point.
	Amendment 24 adds another recall trigger: if a Member has been convicted of an offence under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009—providing false or misleading information for allowances claims—whether or not it has led to a prison sentence. The amendment was proposed in Committee by the Opposition and, given the particular sensitivities of the issue, we fully support the proposal. It is a good idea. Similarly, amendment 15 provides another trigger: if any Member is convicted of misconduct in public office, whether or not they are imprisoned—something that has never happened to a Member before, but which does happen on a semi-regular basis, sadly, to police officers in particular. It seems inconceivable that an MP convicted of such an offence could be immune from recall, so I hope the House will support that amendment too.
	Amendment 14 tackles the time frame for suspensions from the House to count and ensures that only suspensions after the Committee on Standards has produced a report are involved, thus excluding those from the Speaker alone. Again, this was an idea proposed by the Opposition in Committee and it is sensible. The other amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and I have supported deal with a range of technical details—not least the need to add words such as “third”, “fourth” and “fifth” to legislation that frequently enumerates conditions—as well as more substantial matters, such as historical offences, which I will leave to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife to explain.
	Lastly, there are the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and the amendment to his new clause 4, from the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie). I have particular sympathy for the amendment to the new clause, which follows on from the work of Charles Bradlaugh to expand the oath to allow more Members to honestly take it. I am therefore supportive of the ideas of the amended new clause 4. However, I am concerned by the proposal in new clause 5, even though I recognise much of the wording has been taken from my new clauses. It is reasonable to ask a court to consider misconduct offences, but it is much harder to ask it to judge abstract conceptions such as leadership. Do we have any idea how a court could judge whether we in this House had displayed adequate leadership?
	I look forward to hearing comments from across the House on the amendments, but I intend to test the will of the House on all amendments, in particular new clauses 2 and 6, as well as the consequential amendments, and, if they are not accepted, I shall support those proposed by the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), rather than passing the buck to the other, unelected House.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has already touched on new clauses 4 and 5, which stand in my name, and amendment (a) to new clause 4, which has not been selected, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie).
	I should clarify that the purpose of new clause 4 is to answer a question that I and other hon. Members posed when we discussed the Bill in Committee and on Second Reading. There is no job description for MPs, so if we are creating the principle of recall—a principle I fully endorse: I believe recall should be possible at the initiative of constituents and the electorate—it is important to have a yardstick. If we are affirming that MPs have and owe that degree of accountability to their constituents, there should be a clear basis on which constituents can rightfully wrest the exercise of that right. We had all sorts of circular arguments about whether having an open petition system could lead to all sorts of specious and spurious grounds that were motivated by partisan or other interests. I believe it was important to create a basis on which MPs could subscribe to the possibility of recall by acknowledging from day one when they take their seats here that they are subject to that degree of accountability and owe service to their constituents. That is why I support the concept of MPs taking a new pledge.
	It is rather strange that we are pursuing a Bill that is creating the idea that a strong rule of accountability is to be translated into a recall, yet whenever MPs come here to assume their seats, all they do is issue words in the form of an oath or an affirmation about allegiance to the Crown, which many of them do not actually believe. I am not sure that that does anything for the credibility or reputation of politics when the first thing that politicians do in taking their seats is to recite words that they might not believe. Those who believe in those words should absolutely be able to recite them, but it is important that, regardless of whether Members believe in the affirmation or the oath, we should utter a pledge in respect of our parliamentary standards.
	Given that hon. Members proposed amendments in Committee that made reference to the MPs’ code of conduct and given the importance of expenses and other relevant issues that could motivate a recall, we need to recognise the significance of the seven standards of public life, which appeared in the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, for this Bill. Hence the pledge I propose in new clause 4 has MPs, on taking their seats, affirming that they will abide by the MPs’ code of conduct and honour the seven standards of public life as they are now. Those standards could, of course, be revised and extended in future. The new clause would leave the phrasing of the pledge open.

Lady Hermon: I apologise for not being in my place at the start of the debate, but I am very interested in this Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are five absentee Sinn Fein Members who are obviously not going to turn up and take any pledge in this House or assume their seat any time soon, if ever. What would be the sanction for such Sinn Fein MPs who refused to sign any pledge?

Mark Durkan: I take the hon. Lady’s point, but if she looks at the new clause, she will see that an MP subscribing to the pledge may do so
	“(a) in writing; or (b) in person at the same time as taking the Oath required by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866.”
	So anybody elected to this House on the basis of serving their constituents in the way that Sinn Fein Members pledge they will serve their constituents could not take their seats or sign on to take their seats. Sinn Fein Members could fulfil the requirement by signing the pledge “in writing”. That is entirely feasible, so my new clause would not create any barrier or impediment for Sinn Fein Members—or, indeed, for any other Member elected on the basis that they will not take up their seats in this House, but will use their seats in whichever way they won their mandate for.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene a second time. I understood that there were the alternatives of saying the words of the pledge when Members take up their seats here or of making the pledge in writing. My question, however, was what the sanction is for MPs, including Sinn Fein Members, who do not take the pledge either in writing or orally.

Mark Durkan: I have not gone as far as that; it could mean a further sanction that if people do not take the pledge, they will be deemed not to have taken up their seats. That could be one way of doing it. We could say that expenses and other things would be paid only in circumstances where the MP has signed the pledge.
	The standards required by the pledge would include due observance of all rules and principles involving such matters as expenses which relate to the code of conduct or to the “standards of public life”. All the requirements are parliamentary standards. It is possible that a Member’s status in respect of allowances and facilities would kick in only when the pledge was signed, but that is a detail.
	I have no reason to believe that the pledge, as currently drafted, would cause any problems for Sinn Fein or anyone else. That is not the point of the pledge. The point of the pledge is to establish the working principle that from day one of a person’s life as an MP, that person is here to observe certain standards. MPs will be free to exercise and voice their own views in many ways and on many of the issues that arise in the House, and they will be able to do that in terms that fully respect their conscience. After all, the “standards of public life” that an MP will pledge to uphold include
	“integrity… accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.”
	Those who hold a clear and conscientious view on a matter and wish to reflect that in a vote in the House—whether on a Bill or on some other measure—will be able to defend themselves against any charge of inappropriate behaviour on the basis that that is their clear, conscientious view, and that they have voted in a spirit of integrity, honesty and openness. Some have expressed a fear that the more open form of recall mechanism that could be initiated by constituents—the rolling petition model— would lead to Members’ being challenged on the basis of votes that they had cast or not cast, or views that they had voiced, but the terms of the pledge would protect them from the mounting of specious tactical challenges.
	I thought that providing for the pledge to be taken either at the same time as, or in place of, the oath under the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 might be outside the scope of the Bill. That is why I limited new clause 4 to
	the terms in which it appears, but it is also the understandable reason for the tabling by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and two other Members of amendment (a). The amendment would have allowed the pledge to be taken in place of the oath, and failure to take the oath would not have left any Member in peril under the 1866 Act. I think that that is fair and sensible, and had the amendment been selected I should have liked it to be passed, because it would have made it clear that the primacy of membership of the House relates to Members’ accountability to their constituents and the standards and service that they pledge to them, and to the broader public interest, according to good parliamentary standards.
	New clause 5 adopts the suggestion, made during our earlier discussions, that a public petition based on evidence that a Member had failed the pledge of office could find its way to an electoral court. Let me level with Members: that is not a method, or approach, that I particularly favour. I still support the rolling petition mechanism that was proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) in Committee. I believe in the idea of there being essentially a premise-petition first. The previous proposals were for 5%, and some expressed the thought in the previous debate that it should be 10%. I still favour that option of either 5% or 10% and a threshold petition initiated at 20%—I understand that some people have said that that might be 25%. That is my view. I know that some people have looked at these amendments and said, “These amendments mean that there is a complete stitch-up by all the parties here, big and small, to have no meaningful recall.”. I am not part of a stitch-up. Also, it is not a give-up on the part of those of us who believed in that and advocated those amendments at the previous stage. However, I understand from talking to colleagues who supported those amendments in Committee that they had no wish to necessarily see that whole argument rerun here, which is why when we are talking about making the case for a new MPs’ pledge providing the basis or working reference point for any future recall petition, I have gone for the lower-case model of a smaller petition going to the electoral court.
	I understand fully what other Members have said, even in their interventions on the hon. Member for Cambridge, about people being reluctant to see this as a matter that goes straight to the courts—the idea that even where there are 500 or 1,000 constituents, the recall would go straight to the courts and the decision would be taken there. I accept that that is not desirable, but I have tried to reflect on the arguments made by other hon. Members and to understand the will of the House, and this is the model I have offered. I certainly believe that it could be better, but I felt I needed to offer some measure alongside the concept of the pledge to show how the pledge might be used and how it might be the central reference point in any recall move.
	If we are serious about the principle of recall, it has to be something that goes back to the constituents. Whatever the issues about decisions that might be taken by bodies within this House in relation to standards or breaches—I know that there are proposals in some of the other new clauses and amendments but I will not speak to them now—I still believe that the public will treat the idea of recall as serious when recall is in their ownership and can be at their initiative. I understand,
	however, that hon. Members feel that if we leave it just to the public initiative, it will be abused. They feel that there will be no bottom line, no standards and no protection. I believe that the idea of the pledge provides that sort of protection. It is the clear reference or standard point to which the public can look and hold MPs to account, and it is also the defence line for MPs.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I agree that it would be better for the decision to be made by the electorate—by the court—but is not the problem with the pledge being determined by the court that the pledge is fundamentally political rather than legal?

Mark Durkan: I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it can be legal up to a point; there could be some matters on which a clear-cut judgment could be made. I have chosen to offer the route through the court simply because it seemed to me that there was a will or a mood in Committee saying, “Well, if we’re going to allow any element of public petition to recall, then going to an election court could be the way that could be done.” I have simply taken that point and offered this new clause to try to test Members on whether they will follow through on the logic of the argument they made in Committee.
	I do not commend the model in new clause 5 above all others. I still prefer the open rolling petition around a clear issue, but, again, I think that the open rolling petition should be on the basis of a pledge. I think the pledge as the basis for those petitions would create a much clearer standard for the public. It would also create a clearer standard for MPs, who would know, if they had committed to the pledge, whether they had abided by the code of conduct and could show whether they had upheld the standards of public life. That should not be too much to ask. MPs should not feel, “Oh, it’s hard to prove that we have upheld the standards of public life or lived up to the code of conduct.” It would send a very dangerous signal if Members felt that a pledge about the MPs code of conduct and the standards of public life would be difficult to uphold or could be abused in some untoward way. Then we would be seen to be trying to find ourselves some highly privileged protection where we decide that we always know best, even about the worst that we have done.
	That is the simple point of new clause 5, which I do not intend to press to a Division. Its purpose is to ensure that if we are to improve the Bill, we take into account the absence from the Bill of a clear tool available to the public. Also, we need to make good the serious omission that we have all acknowledged—in circumstances where there is no serious job description for MPs, where is the bottom line? The new clause offers a bottom line.

Zac Goldsmith: It is worth taking stock of where we are. The Government’s Bill still has no friends in its current form. It still proposes a system of recall that is possible only in the narrowest of circumstances and, in most cases, still only by permission of MPs. It will do nothing to empower voters. For that reason it has been savagely criticised by every pressure group campaigning for improved democracy—everyone from 38 Degrees and Unlock Democracy all the way to the TaxPayers Alliance. It has been trashed by everyone from the Morning Star to The Daily Telegraph, which described it a few weeks ago as an “insult to voters”.
	As a consequence, the Prime Minister felt obliged to describe the Bill as “the minimum acceptable”. Labour’s shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), said that
	“the Bill needs to be strengthened considerably from its current state in order for it to have meaning.”

Douglas Carswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental flaw in the Recall of MPs Bill is that it does not contain a recall mechanism?

Zac Goldsmith: Exactly right. This is not recall as it is understood anywhere in the world.
	The shadow Minister went on to say that the Bill
	“is simply not good enough. The public will, rightly, expect more.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 787.]
	Even the Deputy Prime Minister, who wrote the Bill, has had to express difficulties with it.
	But after all that huffing and puffing, here we are today with more or less exactly the same Bill—a Bill that no one likes. Yes, a few amendments have been proposed, but they are red herrings. They add nothing useful to the Bill. Labour’s main proposal, amendment 14, merely lowers the threshold so that hon. Members who are suspended from the House for 10 days or more automatically qualify for recall. The original proposal was 21 days. The only effect that will have is in the judgments made by a committee of parliamentarians. They will simply rejig the way they sentence MPs accordingly. The 10-day rule would have spelled the end for any number of hon. Members who have been sanctioned for engaging in protest.

Thomas Docherty: May I clarify the amendment? It specifically excludes those Members who have been named by the Speaker for parliamentary protest in the Chamber. It does not capture Members who have engaged in parliamentary protest.

Zac Goldsmith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It changes nothing at all. I am reassured by the point he makes, but all this does is create a different dynamic—a different impetus for the committee of parliamentarians. They will simply pass different judgments accordingly.
	The main Lib Dem amendment, new clause 2, introduces a new trigger—misconduct in public office. It sounds great and some people might be reassured by it, but it adds nothing material to the Bill. I have looked into the matter and sought advice. I quote some of the advice that has been issued. The Crown Prosecution Service says that this should apply
	“only where … the facts are so serious that the court’s sentencing powers would otherwise be inadequate”.
	The House of Commons Library says:
	“There are few prosecutions, suggesting that action is taken only when misconduct is particularly gross.”
	The courts have said:
	“The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder. A mistake, even a serious one, will not suffice.”
	If we are honest about it, the only reason why this amendment has been tabled is so that the mainstream parties can pretend that they have addressed one of the main concerns with the Bill, which is that it leaves MPs in charge.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman said that a mistake, even an honest one, will not suffice. Does he actually think that MPs should be subject to recall just because they have made an honest mistake?

Zac Goldsmith: The hon. Gentleman knows my arguments concerning recall. I am deliberately trying not to rehearse the arguments that were made in Committee because I lost them by a ratio of 2:1, but I fundamentally disagree with his view on how recall should be used. I was elected largely on the basis that I would put up a fight against Heathrow expansion. Had I, immediately after the election, taken a non-executive role within BAA—even an unpaid role of some sort—and flipped my position entirely, that would have amounted to a fraud on my voters. Had I performed such a U-turn, I believe they should have had the right at that point to recall me. The hon. Gentleman disagrees and that is a fundamental philosophical difference, but I will not rehearse the arguments because, as I said, I accept that I lost them a few weeks ago, sadly.
	So, we have the same Bill, more or less, with a few synthetic changes if they are passed later today, and we are supposed to believe that the three main parties are all of a sudden happy with it. Perhaps they are, but if so it is only because they were not really, genuinely, authentically unhappy with the old version that we debated. Either way, it is an embarrassing, insulting nonsense. They have tied themselves up in knots to avoid letting voters hold them to account, all the time pretending that they are doing the opposite.
	As if to prove how seedy this affair has become, the most extraordinary letters have been sent by MPs to their constituents, explaining why they blocked real recall. I will not rattle them all off, but let me give one example. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) told his constituents that he opposed real recall because
	“I could have faced…recall…for voting in favour of an in out referendum”.
	He added:
	“I could have faced a recall campaign for having voted to close corporation tax loopholes.”
	Does he honestly, truly believe that his constituents would have wanted to recall him for doing either of those things? Is it possible to have greater contempt for one’s voters than he expresses in that article in his local newspaper? I have seen countless letters explaining that pure recall would undermine the independence of MPs—letters, incidentally, sent by MPs so dependent that they have never once strayed from the party Whip, never once been disobedient to the parties they serve.
	And then, we have the Deputy Prime Minister, who robustly opposed real recall six times in this Chamber that I am aware of. Six times he was on the record opposing California-style recall—

Tom Brake: Did the hon. Gentleman notify my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) that he would mention his name in this debate?

Zac Goldsmith: No, I did not. I was not aware that I was supposed to. Perhaps I will be recalled under the new mechanism that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing.

Lindsay Hoyle: The point has been made. Normally, it is good practice to let people know if you are going to name them. I am sure that it was not done intentionally.

Zac Goldsmith: I do apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is not a convention that I was aware of, and it certainly was not intentional.
	The Deputy Prime Minister has formally opposed, on the record, real recall six times in this House. Then, as the pressure for proper recall began to rise earlier this year, he clearly felt it. He told his LBC listeners:
	“Zac and I are completely at one. I actually have no objection at all to the kind of radical California style recall that he likes.”
	The real problem, he added, is that
	“It has absolutely no hope…of being passed into law because of profound objections from conservative colleagues.”
	Of course, when it came to a vote—a free vote for the coalition, if not for the Labour party—his party trooped as one through the No Lobby, against real recall.
	In the last debate on recall, Members were asked to trust voters to hold them to account, and a majority declined, sadly. I genuinely believe that the establishment’s refusal to share power means that ultimately, it will lose that power. However, the result was clear and for that reason I have not tabled any new amendments. It was clear that the House as it is today is not ready for proper recall, and I would be wasting the House’s time if I rehearsed all those arguments and re-tabled those amendments.
	However, there is some good news. In an impassioned speech, a Scottish National party MP—the name of his constituency is so complicated that it is a disincentive to quote him, so I will not. [Hon. Members: “Western Isles.”] Is that right? So that is what we call it in English. I was not aware of that. I was going to attempt the native version, and I am afraid that I would have got it wrong. Nevertheless, in an impassioned speech, the hon. Gentleman said that even if reform were rejected by the House, it was inevitable, and he was right. Prospective parliamentary candidates up and down the country from all the parties—Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative and the rest—are positioning themselves against the incumbents on the basis of where they stand on recall.

Richard Fuller: Does my hon. Friend agree that recent news has highlighted the public’s distaste for a political elite keeping themselves to themselves and ruling over the people? Is not that another reason for the public being frustrated that the Bill does not include the real recall provisions that he proposed on Second Reading?

Zac Goldsmith: I could not agree more strongly, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention.
	Change is inevitable, and we are moving in the right direction. I also believe that, with the new composition of the House after the election, we will be in a better position to bring in a genuine form of recall. I certainly hope that that will happen. In the meantime, however, let us not insult voters with this placebo that is being
	offered today. People who are interested in politics already know that this Bill is a sham and a stitch-up. The rest—those who are perhaps not paying attention today—will discover that fact for themselves at the very first scandal. Let us walk away from this disgraceful piece of legislation and wait until the House grows some collective proverbials and does the right thing.

Thomas Docherty: rose—

Zac Goldsmith: I was about to finish, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Thomas Docherty: Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s acceptance of the vote last time, will he clarify whether it is his intention to oppose amendment 24, which deals with MPs who fiddle their expenses, if there is a Division on it?

Zac Goldsmith: I am happy to answer that question. I do not want to sound self-important, but it is my intention not to vote one way or the other on the amendments or the Bill, because I do not want to give the Bill any credibility at all. It is a sham, a shambles, a farce, an insult and a disgrace and I do not want to have anything to do with it. When we come back to the House with a proper proposal, I will engage again, but for now I would advise all those Members who believe in democracy, in reform and in genuine recall to walk away and wait for another time.

Thomas Docherty: I want to set out Labour’s position on the principle of recall and the reasoning behind the amendments that have been tabled by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and others. I will then set out Labour’s views on the new clauses and amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). Finally, I will deal with the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).
	I want to begin by again placing on record Labour’s support for the principle of recall when an elected representative’s conduct falls well below the standards that Parliament and their constituents expect. That is why our 2010 manifesto promised to introduce recall legislation and why we supported the Bill on Second Reading. We will support it again on Third Reading.
	However, we continue to believe that the Bill could be strengthened. We have tabled a number of amendments to that end, and I am grateful that they have attracted cross-party support. We discussed the principles behind each of them in Committee, and the hon. Member for Cambridge has already mentioned them briefly, so I will not detain the House by rehearsing all the arguments or going into unnecessary detail.
	Amendment 14 seeks significantly to lower the threshold for the period of suspension relating to the point at which a Member of Parliament may be subject to a recall petition. As it stands, the Bill states that the second recall condition is that a Member must be suspended from the House for 21 sitting days to reach the threshold. We believe that that sets the bar too high. For example, neither of the MPs who were suspended during the cash-for-questions scandal would have been subject to potential recall using that threshold. By reducing it to 10 days, as we propose, Members such as those and many others who have been suspended over the years would be captured by the revised mechanism.
	However, we recognise the genuine concern that Ministers flagged up during the Bill’s previous stages, which has been echoed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), that a Member who had twice been named by the Speaker for unparliamentary activity or protest could fall foul of the lower threshold. That is why we have inserted the provision that the suspension must be the result of a report into an MP’s behaviour by the Standards Committee, although it is for the House as a whole to determine the length of a suspension.
	Our amendment 24 deals with Members who have been convicted of fiddling their Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority-funded parliamentary allowances. Some may be curious as to why we are proposing that the recall process should apply even where a non-custodial sentence is handed out. We believe that a flagrant misuse of public funds by MPs is simply unacceptable. Those of us who were not MPs in the previous Parliament fully understand the public’s anger at that whole sorry saga. As the Leader of the Opposition has highlighted, the public’s confidence in our political system has been severely strained by the events of the past few years. We hope that this amendment signals to the public that Parliament is listening and changing.

Julian Huppert: The other point the hon. Gentleman could make is that his party’s manifesto specified that recall would be only for MPs found responsible for financial misconduct. So his proposal is entirely in keeping with his manifesto, as our proposal is with our manifesto commitment. Indeed, the surprise is that none of the major parties had something analogous to that which seems to be pushed by so many.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for our amendment. I would not say it was only about that condition, but we did specifically state that it was grounds for recall, which is why we supported the Bill on Second Reading and will do so on Third Reading.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Gentleman just said that the changes in his amendment arise because of past failings in MPs’ behaviour and how such failings have strained the public’s credulity. That may be one explanation, but another may be that the public realise that they want control over a much greater proportion of what Members of Parliament do, and that direct democracy has a much greater role to play and arouses much greater passion in the community. Does he think that is a push for the Bill and his amendments to have gone further?

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to restart a debate we had on Second Reading or in Committee. The Opposition are clear that we are representatives, not delegates; and that the basis for recall must be wrongdoing and misconduct, not because an individual constituent or a well-funded vested interest group disagrees with how a Member has voted. That is an important difference.

Richard Fuller: If that is the basis for the hon. Gentleman’s position, does he think that those in America’s House of Representatives, some of whom are subject to recall, are delegates, not representatives?

Thomas Docherty: With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I just clarify the point for the hon. Gentleman? Members of the two Houses of Congress, and the President and vice-president of the United States, are not subject to the recall provisions. Those apply only at state level, because the courts have ruled that there is no constitutional provision in the United States at federal level for the recall petition. So, ironically, the one group of US citizens who are exempt are those in Congress; many who observe their proceedings might wonder from time to time whether they should be recalled.
	Amendment 16, our third substantive amendment, deals with the quirk that under the Bill as it stands only offences committed after the date of Royal Assent are covered. We have previously highlighted our belief that this should apply to all new convictions, regardless of when the offence was committed. I do not intend to rehash previous examples, but where an offence comes to light only after a Member of Parliament is elected, surely it would be wrong to deny his or her constituents justice. Of course this should not apply where a conviction occurred before a Member was elected, because it is a reasonable assumption that the electorate have already taken that into account when choosing to vote for them, and there is precedent within the UK for that. However, how can a constituent know about an offence where no conviction has occurred? We hope that the Government will accept those arguments.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sympathetic to most of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, but I do have a query about this one. Is it not, as a general principle, unfair to apply a punishment to people that they did not know might be a punishment at the point at which they did the wrongdoing?

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his argument, but of course that person was not a Member of Parliament when they committed the offence, so would not expect to be denied something going forward. Let me take his argument and reverse it. This place abolished capital punishment some 40-odd years ago. If somebody were today convicted of a crime that previously had capital punishment as a tariff, we would not retrospectively apply a punishment that no longer exists.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in allowing interventions, but his argument also applies the other way around. If somebody were found guilty of an offence committed 40 years ago, for which the punishment was a maximum fine of 2 shillings and 6 pence, they could still only be fined that amount. It is a very important legal principle that the penalty may not be increased, but it may be reduced.

Thomas Docherty: I suspect the hon. Gentleman needs no reminding that this Bill is about providing rights to our constituents. I am talking about a right to recall where serious wrongdoing has occurred. Yet again, he tempts me to remind the House that, after being elected, my local Scottish National party MSP was found to have committed a string of domestic violence offences over a 30-year period. He was charged and convicted only after he became a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and there was no mechanism for recall, despite the fact that he had broken a frying pan over his step-daughter’s
	head. I believe the House will agree that it is absolutely right that, where offences have come to light and there is a new conviction, we provide justice to those constituents.

Michael Ellis: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has said. It is an ancient principle of English justice not to impose retrospective penalties or an ex post facto view on things. Is the Labour amendment designed to impose on individuals a penalty that would not have applied previously? I think it is, in which case it is against the principle of natural justice.

Thomas Docherty: May I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that he may be confusing sentence with offence? There is no attempt to make a retrospective offence. What we are saying is that one of the tariffs to which an hon. Member would be subject is recall. It is about balancing the rights to justice with the rights of our constituents. If he is saying that he will oppose us on this measure, I do not think he will find many colleagues with him in the Lobby.

Mark Field: My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) might find me as a supporter. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Government’s reasoning in this regard may be to draw a line under the past? In fact, they said as much earlier on. We all know that the public were appalled by the expenses scandals of the past. That is why IPSA was set up. It was designed to draw a line under the past and make sure that everything was independently audited. I hope we will continue to do that as far as future independent salary reviews are concerned, but the principle applies here as well. We need to draw a line under the past, and keep the future in mind.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let me help to draw a line. Members must make short interventions, not speeches. If we can make future interventions shorter, it will help.

Thomas Docherty: We absolutely agree on the point about IPSA expenses. To provide justice to our constituents, it is a relatively uncontentious tweak to the Bill to say that if a Member of Parliament were convicted of serious wrongdoing they should not be able to evade natural justice just because their offence was carried out before Royal Assent. Let me now make a little more progress.
	We see these three amendments as sensible steps towards improving the Bill and significantly strengthening the rights of constituents to hold their Members of Parliament to account. I am grateful to Members from the other parties and to those on the Government Benches who have signed our amendments or who have indicated that they will support them tonight. I hope that when the Minister responds he will confirm that he, too, supports our proposals and that he will encourage all his colleagues to endorse them so that they can be carried without a Division.
	I now turn to the new clauses and amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). I want to deal first with new clause 2 and the amendments relating to it. As I said in
	Committee, we support the principles behind the idea. We agree with the hon. Gentlemen on the idea of an independent mechanism when it can be demonstrated that wrongdoing has occurred. Like the hon. Gentlemen, we entered into talks with Ministers in good faith to make it work. However, as has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge, despite lots of warm words from Ministers the Government have walked away without fully engaging. At no point did Ministers proffer alternative wording, which will of course leave many wondering whether parliamentary counsel were ever engaged properly. The Government Chief Whip who, yet again, is nowhere to be seen, seems to have decided that this is all too much effort.
	That is no way for the Government to behave, not only after giving clear assurances in Committee but on a Bill that was, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, a key plank of the coalition agreement. The result of the Government’s behaviour is that we are left with a new clause that is, by the admission of the hon. Member for Cambridge, not in a fit and proper state. I appreciate that its promoters have tried as hard as they can to get these principles into a workable state, but despite their best efforts the amendments are simply not there.

Julian Huppert: Let me be clear that I have never said that I do not think the new clause is in a fit and proper state. There were some problems with the previous version, but I think that it is now in a good state. I dare say, however, that their lordships could tweak it.

Thomas Docherty: I therefore refer the hon. Gentleman to new clause 3, which places the burden of proof on the Member of Parliament. Again, let me quote what he has said. Although I accept what he has said about no longer seeing that quotation as accurate in terms of what he was trying to achieve, it reflects what new clause 3 says. He said:
	“This test of “reasonable to believe” puts the burden clearly on the MP to disprove beyond doubt the allegations against him or her in the first instance. It would mean a high chance of success for petitioners unless their evidence was very weak indeed.”
	The hon. Gentleman has already clarified that he does not support that, so if he does not support the intent behind new clause 3 I would gently suggest that the best thing would be for the new clause to be rewritten.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the errors in what I wrote on Lib Dem Voice and he will be pleased to know that it has been corrected, but in such a way that one can still see the original. I am not trying to hide the fact that I made an error. The bit that was not fit and proper was that aspect of the article on Lib Dem Voice and the new clause is still quite clear. The “reasonable to believe” test is a fairly common and standard one.

Thomas Docherty: Perhaps I can return to that point in a moment or two.
	Let me explain what we see as the problems with new clauses 2 and 3 and the associated amendments. The court process can be started comparatively easily as 500 signatures would not be difficult to obtain and a rich group or a rich individual who wanted to attack a Member of Parliament could pay for lawyers once those signatures had been obtained to mount a
	court application that would be both costly and distracting for the MP to fight. New clause 2 does not require the case to be proved, as the hon. Member for Cambridge has admitted, beyond reasonable doubt or even to some lower standard, only that the court has “reason to believe” the Member of Parliament is guilty of misconduct in public office. The clause requires only an arguable case and not a proved case, which makes an MP vulnerable to losing in court when the allegations have been proved, to be taken forward.
	New clause 2 also sets the standard by reference to the language of the criminal offence of misconduct in public office, which, as the hon. Member for Cambridge admits, is a criminal offence in England but not in Scotland or, I think, in Northern Ireland. If the court concluded that there was reason to believe that a Member of Parliament was guilty of the offence of misconduct in a public office, in addition to the recall petition’s being opened the Member of Parliament would be incredibly vulnerable to prosecution for the criminal offence. A well-funded individual or group could achieve 500 signatures, tie a Member of Parliament down in difficult court proceedings, in which the attackers do not even have to prove their allegation, and, if they succeed in court, subject the Member of Parliament to not only a recall petition, but the possibility of criminal proceedings.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He will be aware, of course, that there is an existing process whereby an individual or group—perhaps well funded—can bring a case to an election court. There is no appeal; there is judicial review. It has far more powers, because it may not only deny a Member their seat, after potentially expensive processes, but ban them from standing for public office, as happened to Phil Woolas, which is a much tougher sanction than that which is proposed here. Is he suggesting that that should also happen, because a large amount of money could be used to challenge an MP who had just been elected, which I think is what he is concerned about?

Thomas Docherty: The difference is that in the Woolas case in 2010 the complainant had to prove not just a level of expectation, but beyond reasonable doubt. There were full court proceedings and it was rightly determined—the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this—that Mr Woolas should be banned from holding office for a period of five years, I think.

Julian Huppert: Three.

Thomas Docherty: Apologies. Those were proper court proceedings that resulted in a verdict. New clause 2 and its associated amendments would simply require a reasonable expectation, which we believe would be an unsatisfactory mechanism at the moment.
	The other group of amendments, which centre on amendment 15, would add a further mechanism for the opening of a recall petition: when a Member of Parliament has been convicted of the criminal offence of misconduct in public office. The difference between that gateway and the first gateway—conviction of a criminal offence—is that it is open even if the Member in question is not sent to jail. Although a conviction for that offence would normally follow a prosecution by the Crown Prosecution
	Service, it could follow an incredibly expensive private prosecution, which again would place a Member of Parliament at the mercy of well-funded vested interest groups. There are those who genuinely believe that we should endorse that process, but the Opposition do not wish to see that US-style pact, with well-funded vested interest groups able to recall, tie up and bog down a Member of Parliament for four and a half years of a five-year Parliament.
	We are also concerned that that route could be used not only as an alternative to the new clause 2 mechanism, but as a de facto appeal. That is to say, if the Member of Parliament’s opponents do not win on the first attack, they could simply regroup and come back with a private prosecution. Furthermore, that route has no minimum threshold, as it does not require even the 500 signatures that the hon. Gentleman has advocated for new clause 2.

Julian Huppert: I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Could not exactly the same be said of his point about expenses for parliamentarians? There is a similar issue with very specific offences that relate to fundamental aspects of the role, where conviction, even if not imprisonment, has to be taken seriously.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman leads me perfectly to my final point. Our amendment 24 proposes that a further recall condition should be when a Member of Parliament has been convicted of the offence, as clearly set out in the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, of the misuse of public funds, committing fraud against the public purse, which we believe—I hope that the whole House agrees—is completely incompatible with the role of a Member of Parliament. Some will recall a case in the last Parliament in which a right hon. Member—a shadow Minister—was investigated by the police for having been involved in the leaking of documents from the civil service to the Opposition. If that case had been taken up by the police and resulted in a prosecution, I do not believe, and my colleagues would agree, that the leaking of documents, which we would argue can be seen in the public interest, should have left that Member of Parliament open to recall. As the offence of misuse of public office is so vague, it does not involve the same prescriptive reasoning as the 2009 Act, and it is open to vexatious challenge.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman add to the criticisms that he has kindly and very well articulated the point that new clause 2 and amendment 15 would leave Independent Members and Members who belong to small political parties extremely vulnerable because they could not afford to fend off multiple applications made under those provisions?

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Lady is entirely right. There is significant concern, not only in Northern Ireland but in other parts of the United Kingdom, that repeated, harassing private prosecutions could be brought by well-funded groups.
	By the admission of all concerned, more work still needs to be done on these two processes. It is less than satisfactory to be sending to the other place something that, by any standard, is not in a fit condition. To be
	clear, this House is being asked to delegate to the House of Lords responsibility for producing workable recall mechanisms. I regret to have to inform the hon. Member for Cambridge that I cannot, in good conscience, encourage colleagues to vote for new clause 2 and amendment 15 and their associated amendments, because it would be better if they were withdrawn and a fresh look at the whole issue was taken by the other place. May I make him an offer? If he withdraws his new clause and amendment, Labour peers will work with him and his Lib Dem colleagues to draft workable, robust and watertight proposals. We are clear that we are not giving up on the principle behind the new clause and amendment, and we urge him to take the same approach.
	I want briefly to respond to the new clause and associated amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle and others. We fully understand the rationale behind his new clause. The requirement that a Member of Parliament must take the oath before being allowed to represent the people who have elected them has placed not just his party—the Social Democratic and Labour party—but many others in an invidious position. The SDLP, in particular, has wrestled with this problem for many years, and I suspect that we are not going to solve it in one afternoon. He has raised a broader, quite interesting idea about whether the oath or pledge we undertake to fulfil is to our country as a whole or just to the constituents who may or may not have voted for us. I therefore suggest that the both the narrow question of whether the oath should be supplemented, or even replaced, by a pledge and the wider question of its purpose should be considered more fully.
	The House will already be aware that the Labour party has proposed a constitutional convention that would meet after the general election to consider how we are governed, including the future shape, size and accountability of the second Chamber, and to examine codifying our constitution and reforming our political system. I urge my hon. Friend to seize that opportunity to make his case, as I am sure he will receive a sympathetic hearing. In that spirit, I urge him not to press his new clause to a vote but to ensure that his party plays a full part in the convention next year.

Greg Clark: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak at this stage of the debate to set out the Government’s views on the amendments and new clauses. It will not have escaped anyone’s notice, as hon. Members have said, that the Government have tabled no amendments on Report. That reflects our continuing view that the Bill, as drafted, meets fully and faithfully the commitment that our parties made in their 2010 election manifestos.
	My party’s manifesto committed to
	“introduce a power of ‘recall’ to allow electors to kick out MPs, a power that will be triggered by proven serious wrongdoing.”
	The Liberal Democrats’ commitment was to
	“introduce a recall system so that constituents could force a by-election for any MP found responsible for serious wrongdoing.”
	The Labour party made a similar pledge.

Douglas Carswell: Does my right hon. Friend think it is somewhat regrettable that the recall proposal does not actually have a recall mechanism in it? There is
	nothing in it that actually allows voters to have that binary referendum in their constituencies to decide whether or not to recall their MP.

Greg Clark: The recall measure contained in the Bill is precisely that envisaged by the parties’ manifestos.
	Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have made it clear that—beyond implementing our manifesto pledges—it is open to the House to make further amendments, and that, on the Government side of the House, they would be subject to a free vote, including by Ministers. Given that, all I want to do now is make some observations on the part of the Government about some of the advantages and disadvantages of the amendments in question. I repeat that it will be for the House to decide whether to adopt them.
	I will first turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). As he has said, amendments 16 and 17 would alter clause 2 to ensure that historical offences would be liable to trigger recall, which reflects a similar amendment tabled in Committee. As I said when I last stood at the Dispatch Box, there is a case that if an MP were elected and his or her constituents were unaware of the fact that he or she had committed a crime because it had not come to court, that MP might be said to have been elected on a false prospectus. Against that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has pointed out, it remains novel for legislation in this House to have what could be argued is a retrospective effect, and for a criminal act to have consequences—in this case, triggering recall as an MP—that were not the case when the act was committed.
	Amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, would alter clause 1 to reduce the number of sitting days from 21 to 10, and the number of days if not expressed in sitting days from 28 to 14. It would also introduce a requirement that for a suspension to trigger recall it must follow on from a recommendation by the Standards Committee. Nevertheless, the length of time for which the MP would be suspended by the House may be different or the same as that recommended by the Standards Committee. That would ensure, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that an MP named by the Speaker for a second offence and suspended for 20 days would not be subject to a recall petition.
	The argument in favour of the amendment is that more MPs would be caught by the provision who previously would have withstood the effect of recall. If the recall petition process had been in force with the threshold set at 10 sitting days, then of the 11 MPs suspended since 2000 seven would have met the condition for opening the process. Under a threshold of 21 sitting days, two MPs would have been caught. A further two MPs resigned before the suspension came into effect.
	The argument against the proposed change is that the House may wish to impose its own suspensions—sometimes quite long ones—without the consequence of a recall process necessarily being triggered. In other words, the proposal would reduce the scope that the Standards Committee might have to issue sanctions without triggering the recall process.
	Amendment 15, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), would mean that a Member of Parliament convicted of the
	common law offence of misconduct in public office would be subject to a recall petition process regardless of the sentence imposed. Misconduct in public office is a common law offence in England and Wales, punishable by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. There is, however, no clear, exhaustive definition of what misconduct in public office covers. Action that amounts to misconduct is likely also to be contrary to other laws. The boundaries of the offence are not clearly defined, so they are uncertain. Despite there being relatively few prosecutions each year, a disproportionately high number of those cases are appealed against.
	The common law offence of misconduct in public office does not exist in Scotland, so there is a risk that an MP from Scotland could commit the offence of misconduct in public office while working in Westminster given that the offence applies in England, but not if the offence took place while working in their constituency.

Julian Huppert: The Minister is making an interesting point, but is it not the case that an MP taking any other action that was not a criminal offence under Scots law but was such an offence in Westminster could be punished for committing it in England but not for doing it in Scotland?

Greg Clark: Indeed. From reading the minds of Members who are interested in, and sympathetic to, a provision of this kind, it is not clear to me that they intended to have different regimes in different parts of the United Kingdom, given that all of us have the common characteristic of being returned to serve in the United Kingdom Parliament after election by our constituents.
	I want to address Opposition amendment 24 on the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The legislation was brought forward following the expenses scandal, and it deals directly with dishonest claims for MPs’ expenses. It is fair to say that that issue obviously provided some of the impetus behind the recall proposals in the first place. The offence in section 10 of providing false or misleading information in claims for allowances is intended to deal with the situation in which an MP provides information that he or she knows to be false or misleading. It does not cover innocent mistakes; we are talking about deliberately providing false information. So far, no prosecutions have been brought under the Act. I remind the House that the former MPs and peers who were convicted of fraudulent expenses claims were all sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
	It seems to me that the question before the House on amendment 24, and indeed on the territorial aspects of amendment 15, is whether certain criminal convictions should be singled out as requiring treatment that is different from the treatment of other convictions. The trigger relates to imprisonment for other offences, many of which—including the Theft Act 1968—have been used to prosecute Members of Parliament. In considering this matter, the question in colleagues’ minds should be, to put it crudely, whether theft from a member of the public is less worthy of automatic sanction than theft through the IPSA expenses system. Treating those offences differently introduces a distinction that currently does not exist.

Thomas Docherty: Does the Minister however accept that that can happen in other professions? For example, a lorry or taxi driver who receives a driving-related conviction can lose their job, even though they are not disqualified from driving, because committing a driving offence is incompatible with being a professional driver. I am sure that the whole House would agree that the misuse of public funds—stealing from the taxpayer—is incompatible with being a Member of Parliament.

Greg Clark: I accept that. As I have said, the Government’s view is that we should have a free vote on the amendments. I have pointed out the advantages of amendment 24, of which that is one, but it is fair to delineate the consequences. It would, for the very good reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave, put a particular type of criminal offence into the different category of being particularly worthy of sanction, but it carries the implication that some equally egregious and offensive action—clearly, any criminal conviction should be so regarded—would attract a lesser sanction. To put it bluntly, in many people’s minds, theft from a constituent may not be seen as lighter than theft from the parliamentary expenses system; they would both be equally worthy of condemnation. I make that point to clarify the choice facing the House.
	I want to address the new clauses and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), which would introduce a new recall condition. New clause 4 would provide that, at the start of each Parliament, an MP had to subscribe to a pledge to act in accordance with the MPs’ code of conduct, and to uphold the standards of public life. Under new clause 5, if 500 of the MP’s constituents signed a petition complaining that the MP had breached the pledge, the election court could consider the matter and trigger the opening of a petition.
	It came out in the debate, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, that his proposed system would overlap with the disciplinary system set up by the House, because nothing would prevent the election court from considering a matter that the Standards Committee had considered and come to a view on—perhaps a different view from that of the election court. It is not clear whether his proposal envisages public scrutiny of MPs’ compliance with the code of conduct superseding the role of the Standards Committee in recommending sanctions. In addition, it could be seen as setting the code of conduct on a statutory footing.
	The hon. Member for Foyle said that he would not press his new clauses to the vote, but that he wanted to explore the matter. There may be opportunities in the House of Lords for him to reflect on the matter. [Interruption.] Perhaps not personally, unless he is elevated. He would know more about that than I do. I dare say that he has friends and colleagues in the other place who will attend to what he has said in this House.
	It should be noted that the code expressly excludes regulating Members’ private and personal lives,
	“unless such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally.”
	I appreciate the aims of the hon. Member for Foyle. He recognises that it is necessary to refer to a set of rules or
	principles if a court is to judge whether a breach has occurred. The question that he has raised is whether the House’s code of conduct should be policed both here and in the courts. The fact that he will not press his new clauses to a vote means that it is not necessary to come to a definitive view on that.

Mark Durkan: My preference is for the code to be policed by the public, using the mechanism of accountability in a proper, open recall system. That is what I want to see, alongside a newly framed pledge.

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman made that point clear in his speech.
	The amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge are a modified version of those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) in Committee. The intentions of involving the public and taking the responsibility for judging other MPs’ behaviour away from MPs attracted support in Committee. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife expressed disappointment that those intentions had not been reflected in a Government amendment, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge in his blog. However, these issues are not easily captured in legislation in a way that avoids the pitfalls that have been mentioned in this debate. It is not for the want of trying, if I may put it in that way. It is for the House to take a view on the proposal if it is pressed to a vote.

Julian Huppert: We will see what happens in the Division, but will the Minister assure us that the Government, with all their advice and lawyers, will seek to come up with a more workable proposal in the other place if we cannot get our proposal through in this place?

Greg Clark: The Government’s demeanour throughout the debates on the Bill, if I may put it in this way, has been that we are open to facilitating the development of amendments and proposals that either House can debate. In conversations, I have been open to allowing officials to advise on the kinds of proposals that may or may not work legally. I see no reason why that should not continue. It is important to be clear that such proposals cannot carry the guarantee of a Government amendment, but I am happy to use my offices and those of my ministerial colleagues to have those conversations.

Chris Bryant: I urge the Minister not to listen too much to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for the simple reason that there is a fundamental flaw in his proposals: we would be asking a court to make a judgment on whether such a petition should go forward on remarkably subjective terms. Each of the terms in his proposals—“trivial”, “vexatious”, “brought for party political purposes”, “misconduct”, “trust”—is entirely subjective and is surely not good enough for a court to be able to assess.

Greg Clark: I said a few moments ago that it had not been possible, in good faith, for the Government to recommend an amendment that the House could responsibly be invited to support. Since further amendments or developments of the Bill are a matter for the House I will ensure that advice and help is provided, but these matters must be considered and there is no guarantee
	that a form can be found that avoids the practical difficulties. The hon. Gentleman’s more fundamental point is a matter for this House and the other place, and any amendments would return to this House to be determined.
	Let me set out some of the challenges in the new clauses, although some have been expressed already. The definition of misconduct is based on the common law offence in England and Wales, but its test is not just the criminal offence. As drafted, it could capture behaviour that would not be a criminal offence, including in an MP’s private affairs, and it would be for the court to judge whether certain behaviour in a Member’s private life amounted to misconduct. The election court would have to apply the test of whether the MP had committed
	“misconduct to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust”.
	I understand and appreciate the aim of linking misconduct to an MP’s standing in the eyes of the public, but as drafted it is a rather subjective test. The House will want to take a view on the kinds of evidence and analysis that a court might draw on to judge whether the public at large felt there had been a betrayal of trust, including where no criminal offence was alleged to have been committed.

Paul Beresford: My right hon. Friend will be aware that that position has been discussed by the House as it relates to the Committee on Standards, and it was rejected.

Greg Clark: I am grateful for that intervention. It is now clearly on the record and Members can reflect on the view taken by the Committee.
	Let us consider the body that would make the judgment about alleged misconduct. Election courts are convened to consider cases that question the outcome of an election, and they do not meet unless a petition has been brought. At the end of the hearings, the court determines whether the election was valid or void, which can take several months to a year. The court has no investigative capacity but hears views from relevant parties. Giving this new role to an election court would mark a significant departure from current practice, and as I said, it lacks the capacity to launch an investigatory process. Furthermore, no appeal is provided for in the new clauses; indeed, the election court is not currently subject to appeal but only to limited judicial review. That raises the question of whether the election court model is the right basis for the proposal. If it is, I suspect that a number of questions could usefully be asked when fleshing out the detail, including whether there should be an appeals mechanism.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge proposes to set the number of petitioners necessary for the election court to consider an allegation of misconduct at 500. Of course, if it is alleged that a criminal offence has been committed it takes only one person to make a complaint and to have it investigated by the police. Arguably, if the complaint is valid, it should be taken forward regardless of the number of complainants. On the other hand, as a test of popular will the House will want to take a view on the right number of petitioners. The new clause increases to 15% the percentage of electors who need to sign the petition to trigger recall, which is higher than for the other conditions. However, 500 is a lower threshold for the initial trigger.
	If there are to be such additional triggers in the Bill, the House must consider whether to set out the relationships, or hierarchy, between the different recall conditions. An election court could look at issues that could also be considered by the Committee on Standards, which operates on a trigger, or by the police as the gateway to a criminal conviction. If the defence was rehearsed before an election court, or if the court’s finding was considered prejudicial to an MP’s presumption of innocence, it may not be possible for them to have a fair trial. The fact that an MP had to answer allegations in an election court could prevent him or her from facing criminal prosecution for misconduct that amounts to a criminal offence.
	Finally, let me turn to the issue of parliamentary privilege. New clause 3 includes a provision stating that section 9 of the Bill of Rights will not be affected. I understand that this is intended to ensure that privileged matters are not the subject of judgment by the electoral court. However, the use of the word “affecting” could be read in one of two contradictory ways by a court: either as a statement that privilege matters are excluded; or as an admission that the Bill overrides the Bill of Rights, and therefore impacts on privilege but only for these limited purposes, thereby inviting an election court to consider privileged issues as part of a case. If an exclusion is desired, it could benefit from clarification.
	In conclusion, the Government were clear on Second Reading that we are open to ways to improve the Bill and we stand by that commitment. My intention has been to summarise and highlight some of the points the current drafting raises. It is right that the House votes in full knowledge of the technical and policy challenges that remain, as well as the principles behind the amendments. I look forward to hearing the views expressed during the remaining part of this debate.

Angela Watkinson: I support the principle of the Bill: to enable the recall of MPs between general elections if they are considered to have conducted themselves in a grossly unacceptable or inappropriate manner that has led either to a custodial sentence or a suspension from the House of Commons for a period of at least 21 sitting days. Sentences of more than 12 months already lead to automatic disqualification under section 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1981. A third trigger has been proposed, in new clause 2, for a petition signed by 500 people to present allegations of improper behaviour. Presumably, this would not relate to illegal conduct, which would have already led to arrest and charge. I urge caution, because I think this opens up a whole debate on the interpretation of the word “improper”, which will mean different things to different people. An MP’s prolonged absence from the House of Commons without good reason would not be a criminal offence, but it would leave constituents effectively unrepresented and might justify a recall petition on the grounds of wholly improper conduct.
	I did not support proposals in Committee for recall by 5% of the electorate for any reason. I predict that “any reason” could comprise such a wide spectrum as to invite frivolous petitions and could include, for example, disapproval of an MP’s political or religious views on controversial subjects such as: a Member’s
	sexual orientation, entering a same-sex marriage, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, smoking, hunting, alcohol, drugs, gambling and local planning matters. We could all think of any number of reasons that would give rise to frequent vexatious recall attempts of MPs with views that are unpopular with certain sections of their electorate. Recall could be generated easily by well-funded pressure groups or individuals, with all the associated costs to the taxpayer.
	I am also concerned that 500 constituents would form a very small percentage of the electorate. In a constituency of 85,000, 500 would be way below 1%. I have not done the exact calculation, but it would be somewhere between 0.5% and 1%. I am sure somebody is scribbling away already to give me the exact figure. That threshold is far too low, and for that reason I will not support new clause 2, new clause 5 or the related amendment 34. Every Member of this House will know that an accusation against one of our number reflects on each and every one of us, and on Parliament as a whole. The blame falls collectively and the media rejoice in referring to MPs as though all 650 of us are guilty of something of which one or a very small number stand accused. We need to guard against a “guilty until proven innocent” culture, where an MP may be destroyed reputationally and financially, and then, when cleared, finds that the damage is irreparable.
	New clause 4 proposes an MP’s pledge. This has some merit, although I have always assumed that its contents were implied when an MP is sworn into this House. The pledge would reinforce that, although I do not take comfort, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) does, that its contents would reassure the general public or help to deter vexatious accusations.
	I wish to relate my comments to the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. For anyone unfamiliar with this body, it does exactly what it says on the tin: it looks into matters relating to standards in public services and to public servants, including, of course, MPs. Its membership comprises one person from each of the three main political parties: Labour is represented by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), the Liberal Democrats by Lord Alderdice and the Conservatives by me. The other members do not declare their political affinity, and our deliberations are apolitical. Our investigations include wide research, public and professional consultation and seminars that interested parties may attend and to which they may contribute their views and proposals. It then analyses its findings and publishes a report. The common thread running through all the responses to our recent investigation into strengthening transparency around lobbying was the expectation of transparency. The slightest whiff of secrecy, deals done behind closed doors, collusion or corruption causes great concern.
	The Chairman of the Committee, Lord Bew, has written about the importance of public perception and the complex ethical scenarios and possible conflicts of interest that need to be explored at the outset of an individual’s public service to avoid impropriety of any sort. To this end, the Committee recommended the establishment of an induction course for newly elected MPs to make them aware of the duties, responsibilities
	and expectations attached to the role of the MP in Parliament, in their constituency and in their personal conduct.
	New Members are being attracted from an increasingly wide range of professional experience, which has been hugely beneficial to Parliament, because they bring with them additional areas of knowledge, expertise and experience, but coming to this place from a different professional environment can be a culture shock. Our procedures are complex and newly elected MPs need to know what is appropriate and acceptable, and—more importantly—what is not. The proposal for an induction course has received encouraging first reactions, and I hope that the parliamentary Committee on Standards will consider the recommendations in our lobbying report when forming its proposals for changes to the code of conduct and guide to the rules as part of the long-term review of the Common’s standards system.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are dealing with the new clauses and amendments. The hon. Lady’s comments might relate to some of the amendments, but she will want to bring her remarks back within the scope of the discussion.

Angela Watkinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	To conclude, when he winds up the debate, I hope that the Minister will indicate that an induction course for new Members after the 2015 general election will be put in place.

Chris Bryant: I will restrict my comments to new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others.
	In the first round of these debates a few weeks ago, I supported the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) because I wanted a fuller system of recall that gave voters the opportunity to decide when a recall should be advanced, rather than keeping such decisions entirely within the House. At the time, I recognised the honest and honourable endeavour of the hon. Member for Cambridge and others in his party to find another way of opening up that gate, were the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park to fail.
	I must say, however, that I have profound misgivings about the new clause. First, many of the terms are imprecise. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that they were all common- law terms. That is true, but we are putting common-law terms in statute law, and quite often that leads to a difficult situation for courts and judges to provide decisions around. It gets much more complicated in that kind of environment, because they are looking for a steer—what did Parliament really intend by putting a common-law term into statute law?
	For instance, new clause 3(5) sets out the condition that
	“the court considers, on the basis of such evidence, that the allegation of misconduct is—
	(a) not supported by the evidence”.
	I think that is a fairly readily understandable concept; however, subsection (5) continues:
	“or…trivial or vexatious in nature”.
	I would suggest that they are two different categories and have generally been treated differently in common-law
	decision making. Yes, there is case law that relates to that—sometimes the court has said to the Crown Prosecution Service, “I’m sorry, this should not be considered because it is inadequately serious.” However, it is difficult to import that into this kind of decision.
	Then we have the phrase
	“brought for party political purposes”.
	I cannot conceive of a political argument that I have not advanced for a party political purpose. Maybe that makes me immensely partisan—[Interruption]—although I think that every Member who just said, “You said it,” or, “Hear, hear,” was being partisan in the very way they advanced that argument, or at least one could argue that. That is my central point: anybody could argue that any argument was being made for a party political or not for a party political purpose. Guessing what was in the minds of the 500 people who brought the case—500 minds, incidentally, that the court would have to consider in deciding whether something had been done for party political purposes, not one mind—makes a bit of a mockery of that phrase.
	There is also a problem with what, precisely, it is that the court is deciding that the Member would have done. New clause 3(4) says:
	“The court must consider whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is reasonable to believe that the MP has misconducted”—
	I do not like that word for a start, which seems remarkably American in tone—
	“himself or herself, to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the MP, without reasonable excuse or justification.”
	It seems to me that it would be almost impossible ever to adjudicate on such a term. How does one know that the misconduct is of such a degree that the public’s trust in the MP could or should be abandoned? We might be able to determine whether it had been, but I cannot see how a court could determine that the misconduct was of such a degree that the public should have lost their trust in the Member of Parliament, even if they might not have done so, other than the 500 people before the court. And what is this “reasonable excuse”? The concept of “reasonable” is well used in the courts, but what about reasonable excuse? Normally, the reasons for appeal are presented in statute law; in this case it is just a “reasonable excuse,” and we cannot possibly arrive at a decision about what that might be.

Julian Huppert: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: Oh, all right, but I am trying to be quick.

Julian Huppert: I do understand; it is a shame we could not have had these interactions earlier, during my speech. The wording is taken from the Attorney-General’s reference No. 3 of 2003, which says:
	“The offence is committed when a public officer acting as such wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification”.
	The wording is already extant.

Chris Bryant: Yes, and it is remarkably poorly used, for the simple reason that it is regularly taken to appeal—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene
	again, I would be happy to give way to him, although I would probably be being generous with other people’s time rather than my own.
	My argument is that these are imprecise terms. That is not a good way of legislating, not least because at the moment that a court decided that there had been misconduct such as that on which the hon. Gentleman wants it to decide and that none of the get-out clauses in new clause 3(5) applied, to all intents and purposes the court would have decided, in the public mind, that the Member of Parliament was guilty—end of story—and I cannot see how that would not affect whatever might happen in a subsequent recall.
	I have one final problem with the drafting. I understand why the hon. Member for Cambridge has provided in subsection (7):
	“Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting any provision of the Bill of Rights 1689.”
	That appears because several Members have pointed out that there is a problem: if the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament should be “impeached or questioned” in any court of law or any other place, it would be a bit rum for a court expressly to be told that it can go forward on the basis of whether or not an MP has “misconducted” themselves in a proceeding in Parliament. The new clause expressly says that one of the criteria that can be considered is “conduct”, whether it be as a Member of Parliament or not—completely and utterly irrelevantly.
	I believe that there is a fundamental contradiction in the new clause. Under it, the court could decide that how somebody had spoken in Parliament or engaged in a proceeding in Parliament could be considered as relevant to a misconduct hearing. That would limit free speech, which we should guard jealously in this House, and, essentially, undo the Bill of Rights. It is a contradictory provision. For all those reasons, I could not support new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am in a good deal of agreement with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I came into this debate, most unusually, undecided as to how I was going to vote. No guidance was provided from the Whips about how I ought to vote, which I view as a great advance. It is to the great credit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) that he is not trying to tell people how to vote. It shows a considerable wisdom to return to the traditional practice of having free votes on constitutional matters. I hope that this will be continued by other parties and in other Parliaments. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda says that I do anyway, and he is probably broadly right, but I think this should be encouraged across the House.
	I was interested in new clauses 2 and 3. There is a need and desire to widen the ability for recall and to make it easier for constituents to remove Members of Parliament who they think have behaved improperly. The main thrust of the Bill is too narrow, which is a lost opportunity but not a fatal one because it can be developed in future Parliaments. Constitutional development often happens at a slow pace, which is not something I am against.
	I think we want constitutional reform to take place at a pace with which people are broadly comfortable and that carries the nation with it.
	New clauses 2 and 3, however, fundamentally misfire. Instead of making this something that will be decided by the electorate, the provisions introduce a third party—the courts—to try to determine what the hon. Member for Rhondda rightly pointed out are fundamentally political issues. The restrictions to which he referred, particularly the third example where the misconduct case is “brought for party political” reasons, are a complete negation of what is being tried to be achieved. Any complaint must be brought for party political reasons, and any attempt to unseat a Member of Parliament is going to be carried out by somebody who has a party political affiliation of some kind, and it will be to the benefit of a political party to remove a Member of Parliament from another party. Even if the petition and process were started by some wonderfully high-minded figure, of which I am glad to say we have a very large number in North East Somerset, politicians would get involved in it because they would see the advantage, particularly if the Government had only a small majority, of removing a Member of Parliament or indeed of causing such inconvenience that would make it almost impossible for that Member of Parliament to continue in office.
	Another issue involved is the legal costs. Are we to provide a fund to help Members of Parliament defend themselves in these circumstances, or do we find that the Member of Parliament could be bankrupted by the very process—to see whether he had committed misconduct in public office—and thus removed from Parliament anyway, even though the misconduct in public office could not, in the event, be proved?
	We in this House have always sought to keep the courts out of our own proceedings. There seem to me to be two valid sets of people who can intervene in our proceedings: the general public who send us here, and who have an absolute right not to send us here but to send other people in our place; and our own systems, procedures and Committees, which are able to regulate internal goings-on in the House—a right that we declared long before we achieved it in the Bill of Rights.
	As I listened to the hon. Member for Rhondda, I remembered a gentleman whose name was, I believe, Ron Brown, a Labour Member of Parliament in the 1980s who, in the midst of proceedings in Parliament, picked up the Mace, waved it around, and—unlike my noble Friend Lord Heseltine—dropped it. As a result, the Mace was damaged, and it was sent off to Garrard, the then Crown jeweller, to be repaired. Ron Brown was faced with a bill and a suspension. However, he had acted because of his passionate belief about whatever the political topic of the day had been. That was a proceeding in Parliament, but it was certainly misconduct.

Thomas Docherty: As ever, I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s fascinating yet “in order” tour de force, but let me gently remind him that our proposals would exempt Members who fell below the standards that the Chair expected. Mr Brown, whatever else his flaws may have been, would not have been covered by recall.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment, but I am still discussing new clauses 2 and 3. I have not yet moved on to his amendments, towards many of which I am very sympathetic. What concerns me about the new clauses is that they would allow the courts to rule on what was going on in the House. It is very important to prevent that from happening, both from our point of view and from the point of view of the courts. The courts are rightly reluctant to rule on what they believe to be fundamentally political decisions, and it seems to me that new clauses 2 and 3 would give them authority in regard to fundamentally political decisions, such as whether someone’s standard had been that of a decent Member of Parliament who had committed no offence.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that so reluctant are the courts—and rightly so—to judge on any proceedings in Parliament that when the court was considering whether Rebekah Brooks had ever paid a police officer for information, it was not allowed even to consider the fact that when asked on 11 March 2003, during a proceeding in Parliament, whether she had paid a police officer, she had said “Yes.”

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I happen to think that that is absolutely right, both from our point of view and from the point of view of the courts. It is important that our proceedings allow people to be honest and to speak freely without incriminating themselves, and that must be a protection that we seek to maintain. I think that if we undermine it by bringing the courts into the details of the behaviour of Members of Parliament, we will fail. I would go in the opposite direction. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), I would go the whole way and leave it to the British electorate. I would place my trust in them, and let them get on with it. But the worst of all solutions—worse even than a Committee of chums somewhere upstairs deciding that we have all behaved beautifully—is to involve the court system.
	I also cannot agree with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), which is rare, because I often do agree with him. He has proposed a “pledge” in new clause 4. I do not like the pledge. I think that it reads as a sort of bureaucratic announcement that we are all going to do good things, in that awful “speak” that is so common in conferences, about how you should be a leader and grab hold of your management skills, and all that waffle.
	I do not like that at all. It does not accord with my vision of myself as a Member of Parliament. I think that Members of Parliament are here at the service of their constituents, and that their constituents will judge whether they are doing their job properly, rather than someone’s saying that they have not shown leadership. What on earth does “showing leadership” mean? If you are the Prime Minister it is easy, but what is a Back-Bench MP meant to do? [Interruption.] The Prime Minister always shows wonderful, clear, decisive leadership. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) is cackling from his Front Bench. Many people think it is a pity that he did not show leadership by trying to become leader of the Scottish socialists, which would have been very welcome.

Chris Bryant: Or even the Scottish Labour party.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Or even the Scottish Labour party, which is much the same thing.
	I do not think this presents the right image of what a Member of Parliament is trying to be. A Member of Parliament is not trying to be some sort of second-tier bureaucrat. A Member of Parliament is someone who is there to represent his or her constituents, to take a view on the interests of the nation, both nationally and internationally, to stand up and be counted on the basis of what he or she says or does, and then to be held to account by the electorate, rather than making some waffly pledge.
	I also think that in trying to get away from the oath we already take, it fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of the oath. The purpose of the oath is not to show we do not want to change the laws, and it is not to show even that we are necessarily monarchists—although, for the avoidance of doubt, I certainly am—but it is to show that we accept the norms and standards of the country as they currently exist and are willing to use those to change the law through Parliament, and subscribing to that is an indication that a Member of Parliament will behave properly in seeking change, rather than do it in a demagogic or potentially violent fashion. Therefore the oath as a statement of loyalty to the nation via the sovereign is a very important statement and does not preclude people from holding republican views. It merely requires them to express them and act upon them in a parliamentary and legal fashion. I think that is an important distinction and it is why I would oppose new clause 4 and it follows that I would oppose new clause 5. I also think, as I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Foyle, that the two did not go together—that trying to give it to the people and then giving it to a court did not work.
	I want to finish very briefly on the amendments from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. By and large I think they are extremely well considered. I believe that the right of recall should be as wide as it can possibly be made. I would like it to be more generous, and therefore reducing the threshold is sensible. It is obviously sensible, in the atmosphere over the last few years and considering the sensitivity of expenses, to say that somebody who has committed an offence in claiming their expenses ought to face the risk of recall. That ought to be a basis of it because it shows that somebody in this House has behaved badly in their basic terms of membership of this House, so I completely support that, but I cannot support the final amendment on retrospection. I think this is unjust. I see the reasons for it and the case the hon. Gentleman made about the Member of the Scottish Parliament who had committed many serious crimes, but it indicates a problem with the establishment of the Scottish Parliament that it could not do anything about that.
	I also accept that somebody at, let us say, 30 who goes out and robs a bank is not thinking, “Good heavens, if I get into the House of Commons in five years’ time, I may lose my membership because that may be part of the penalty.” I am sure they are thinking more immediately about the risk of a police officer being there and catching them in the act and hauling them off to chokey, but none the less it is unfair to penalise people in a way they did not know could apply to them before they committed the offence, and if this House does not stand up pedantically for the rule of law, nobody will.

Thomas Docherty: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to say something? He is wavering about whether to intervene. I may be persuading him; he may wish to withdraw his amendment on the strength of what I am saying.
	There is a further protection, which has been overlooked throughout this whole debate on the issue of recall, and that is that if the behaviour is so egregious—so shocking to all good common sense—then this House of Commons has the right to expel that Member anyway. We should not forget that, or allow it to wither on the vine.

Thomas Docherty: Given that this Act will, assuming it clears the Lords, come into force at the start of the next Parliament, does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that anyone who chooses to stand for election at the general election on 7 May would know that, if they had committed an offence for which they were then prosecuted and found guilty, they would be subject to recall?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman puts as good a gloss on it as he can, but I do not think it changes the fundamental principle. We could equally say that a Member of Parliament who had committed an offence should be subject to double the time in prison, regardless of when the offence was committed. That would be fundamentally unjust. If we were to say that from tomorrow Members of Parliament who commit an offence should have double the time in prison, that would not be unjust. That would be simply saying that Members of Parliament should be held to a higher standard, and that is perfectly arguable, but to say for an offence committed previously that the punishment can be increased is to act against justice and that is something it is important not to do.

Julian Huppert: But that is exactly what happened with police and crime commissioners in legislation for which I presume the hon. Gentleman voted. If they have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence, they are debarred from the office.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think the PCCs are rather an irrelevance to what we are discussing and I want to remain in order. I believe it is important to be pedantic about upholding the rule of law, and therefore I will oppose that amendment from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. I will support his other ones, but I must reject the proposal that we bring the courts—

Lady Hermon: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I shall give way, of course, to the hon. Lady.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. May I put a proposition to him which is a possibility? On 17 July Lady Justice Hallett’s report was published and a statement was made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In that report, it was identified that 14 terrorists of the republican movement had been granted the royal prerogative of mercy. They are unnamed, but it is believed they might include senior politicians representing Sinn Fein. If the names of those 14 recipients of the RPM whom
	we know to be republican terrorists were to be revealed and included a Member of this House, would the hon. Gentleman think differently?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I always give way to the hon. Lady and she always then serves up the most impossible and difficult interventions. I think she is the Michael Holding of interventions, with these very fast balls being bowled at me. My stumps have disappeared behind me, but what I would say is that I would apply exactly the same rules to those people as to anybody else.

Thomas Docherty: If someone commits an offence currently for which the sentence tariff is less than one year, it is quite reasonable that in future the House of Commons may change the disqualification Act to bring that disqualification down to less than one year. That would equally apply to them. Why does the hon. Gentleman not think that this House has the right to recall somebody who has committed offences prior to this date?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am not sure the hon. Gentleman is right about that because, interestingly, the ability to expel peers very carefully ensured it was not retrospective to the crime or to the sentence. It was right to adopt the principle that it is fundamentally unjust to punish people when they did not know that was the punishment at the time when they committed the offence, so I must oppose his amendment.

Conor Burns: My hon. Friend will see that sometimes when the courts come to sentence someone who is brought before them for an offence committed many years previously, they are obliged to look at the sentencing guidelines that applied at the time of the offence. The case he is making is absolutely right: we cannot have retrospective cases such as this.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and we have seen this in some of the recent celebrity sex offending cases: people have been sentenced under the old rules. That is a good principle of law and this House ought to maintain good principles of law. That is why we should reject that amendment, and reject the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), because they bring the courts into our proceedings, but I think we should accept the amendments of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife that allow more free-flowing recall, because ultimately we should trust the good sense of the British people, especially those in Somerset where most good sense is to be found.

Michael Ellis: As usual, it is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). May I start by agreeing very much with him about the issue of retrospective penalty? It is more than guidelines; it is a fundamental principle of the law of England and Wales that penalties do not apply retrospectively. I have prosecuted and, for that matter, defended cases in court which are often historical offences—this relates particularly to sexual offences, but it can relate to other types of offence as well—where the penalties have moved on and often been increased in the intervening years. The historical sex offence with which the individual defendant is charged carries a
	maximum that no longer applies, but the court is bound by the maximum sentence that was in place at the time of the offence.

Thomas Docherty: I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that the sentence must reflect the crime, but the 1981 Act applied to cases prior to 1981. If an offence came to light now that was committed prior to 1981 and a sentence of a year and a day was handed down, the person would be disqualified.

Michael Ellis: There is nothing objectionable about a disqualification provision for those persons who have previous convictions, so the point that was made earlier about police and crime commissioners is not the point that I am addressing. The point in respect of retrospective penalty is the one that I have made—that to pass a penalty that did not apply when the offence was committed is contrary to natural justice and the provisions of English law as it has always existed.
	I voted for real recall, as it is called, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). I very much support the provision that would allow the electorate to have their say in this matter, but the amendments are unconvincing. Misconduct in public office is another offence that I have prosecuted. Those prosecutions often related to police officers who had misconducted themselves, for example, through the misuse of the police national computer for their own personal reasons. Intervening courts are not the right way of processing the issues that we are addressing here. It should be a matter for the electorate.
	I am unconvinced by new clause 4 and the pledge, as was my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. The oath that we already take covers the circumstance. When we as Members of Parliament take an oath to be faithful and bear true allegiance, that encompasses a duty on us to uphold standards in public life. Therefore I am not convinced by the assertion by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that another oath is necessary.
	An election court is unnecessary and would be a departure from our practice. The election courts that we currently have do not exist 365 days a year. They are brought into existence only on a petition, in very exceptional circumstances. They are rarely established. They are not investigative, so they cannot investigate matters as we would envisage them wanting to do. There is no process of appeal, so an election court would not be the right basis. It would also be bureaucratic and expensive.
	The amendments attempt to bring the electorate out of the equation and to put the matter in the hands of third-party expensive and bureaucratic interests, which I do not support. I have doubts about the reduction to 10 days because those persons who are found to have been rude, who have not apologised to the House, or who have done something that falls below the standards expected should not be open to such a provision.
	I support real recall. The amendments are in many cases a device to avoid public scrutiny. The electorate should have a say in the matter. Those are my views.

Julian Huppert: We have had an interesting and somewhat complex debate, and it is good to have more Members present at the end making arguments than there were at the beginning to hear the arguments made in the first place. It seems clear that there are those who agree with
	the principle of new clause 2 but not with the detail of it, there are those who oppose the principle of it, and there are those who oppose the principle of extending recall at all. It would not be appropriate for this House to delegate to the other place all our decisions about how we should be recalled. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on new clause 2 to see how many Members support that option in principle. I wish to press amendment 15 as well, because I believe the House would want to say that any MP who has been convicted of misconduct in a public office should be subject to recall.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 64, Noes 271.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1
	 — 
	How an MP becomes subject to a recall petition process

Amendment proposed: 14,page1,line18, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	‘(4) The second recall condition is that, following on from a report from the Committee on Standards, the House of Commons order the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of requisite length.
	(4A) A specified period is of requisite length for the purposes of subsection (4) if—
	(a) where the period is expressed as a number of sitting days, the period specified is of at least 10 sitting days, or
	(b) in any other case, the period specified (however expressed) is a period of at least 14 days.”—(Thomas Docherty.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 204, Noes 125.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Amendment proposed: 15, page 2, line 9, at end insert—
	“( ) A further recall condition (misconduct in public office) is that—
	(a) the MP has, after becoming an MP, been convicted of the common law offence of misconduct in public office, and
	(b) the appeal period expires without the conviction having been overturned on appeal.
	Sections 2 to 4 contain more about this recall condition.” —(Dr Huppert.)
	This amendment provides for a further recall condition.
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 119, Noes 193.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: 24,page2,line9, at end insert—
	‘( ) A further recall condition (section 10) is that—
	(a) the MP has, after becoming an MP, been convicted of an offence under section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (offence of providing false or misleading information for allowances claims);
	(b) the appeal period expires without the conviction having been overturned on appeal.
	Sections 2 to 4 contain more about this recall condition.”.—(Thomas Docherty.)
	This amendment provides for a further recall condition
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 281, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2
	 — 
	The first recall condition: further provision

Amendment proposed: 16,page2,line18, leave out “The reference in” and insert “In”. —(Thomas Docherty.)
	This amendment and amendment 17 ensure that a recall petition may be triggered by an offence committed before the day Clause 1 comes into force where an MP is convicted of the offence on or after that day and after he or she last became an MP.
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 236, Noes 65.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 9
	 — 
	Recall petition to be made available for signing

Julian Huppert: I beg to move amendment 9,page6,line30, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
	‘( ) The Minister may, by regulations, having consulted the Electoral Commission, prescribe or amend the wording which must be included on a petition signing sheet.’.
	This amendment allows for the Minister to bring forward detailed wording for the petition-signing sheet after having consulted the Electoral Commission.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 10,page6,line40, leave out
	“a by-election will not be held, as a result of the petition”
	and insert
	“therefore no by-election will be held.”.
	This amendment clarifies wording prescribed for the petition-signing sheet.
	Amendment 11,in clause 19, page13,line7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	‘( ) If a relevant circumstance arises, the functions of the Speaker under or by virtue of this Act (“the Speaker’s functions”) are to be performed by the Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means’.
	This amendment clarifies that only a post-holder elected by the House will be able to exercise The Speaker’s functions under this Act.
	Amendment 12,page13,line12, leave out second “or” and insert—
	‘( ) a recall condition has been met in relation to the Speaker, or’.
	This amendment provides for circumstances where The Speaker meets a recall condition.
	Amendment 13,page13,line14, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
	This amendment is consequential on the clarification that only a post-holder elected by the House will be able to exercise The Speaker’s functions under this Act.

Julian Huppert: After all that excitement, I will try to be brief in presenting these minor and technical amendments. Amendment 9 seeks to deal with some of the awkward wording throughout the Bill on what is required for a recall petition. It simply states that the Minister should talk to the Electoral Commission and then come up with the wording. That would make for a much more flexible approach. I hope that the Government will agree that that is a cleaner and better way forward.
	Amendment 10 deals with some particularly ugly wording. The current wording on the petition signing sheet states:
	“If less than 10% of eligible registered electors in the constituency sign the petition, the MP will not lose [his/her] seat, and a by-election will not be held, as a result of the petition.”
	Perhaps it should state
	“and therefore no by-election will be held.”
	The amendment seeks to turn what is on the petition signing sheet into something approaching the English language. Again, I hope that is not controversial.
	Amendments 11, 12 and 13 deal with some errors that were pointed out in Committee—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. Other Members should not be standing and speaking in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is making important points about important amendments and must be heard.

Julian Huppert: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank all the Members in the Chamber.
	Clause 19 deals with the performance of the Speaker’s functions by others. The Speaker has a critical role in the recall process. The Bill, as currently drafted, states that the Speaker can appoint somebody to perform those functions. That seems very strange for a number of reasons, so amendment 11 proposes that, rather then the Speaker being able to appoint somebody, the Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, such as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would be the obvious person to take on those responsibilities.
	Amendment 12 picks up on the point, made in Committee, that one of the exceptions would be if the Speaker was subject to a recall. In such circumstances it would be odd to expect the Speaker to set in train the process of recalling him or herself, and that raises the question of what would happen if they refused to do so. Would another recall petition be sought against them for failing to fulfil the first?
	Amendment 13 is entirely consequential on the other two amendments. I hope that all five amendments will not prove controversial and that the House will support them unanimously. In the interests of time, I will not push any of them to a vote if there is dissent within the House. However, I hope that the House will agree to them so that they can be made to the Bill as minor, technical and corrective measures.

Thomas Docherty: I, too, will be relatively brief. Amendment 9 relates to an issue we discussed in Committee. The Government gave a clear indication to the Committee that they recognised that it would be inappropriate to place wording in primary legislation on which they had not consulted the Electoral Commission. I hope that the Minister will confirm when he responds whether the Government have now consulted the Electoral Commission, as they undertook to do in Committee.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that, having had a hat trick of wins earlier this evening, we should not press our luck tonight. However, we are clear that we do not believe that it is appropriate to have wording in primary legislation that has not been agreed by the Electoral Commission. We will expect the other place to remove that wording if the Government are unable to satisfy this House that they have consulted the Electoral Commission.
	Amendment 10 simply rewrites the wording set out in clause 9, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said, and I do not think that it requires further explanation. Amendments 11, 12 and 13 relate to a point that was made during our line-by-line consideration of the Bill. He is absolutely right that it is inappropriate to have ambiguity about what would happen if the Speaker was subject to a recall petition—not least for the benefit of the Speaker. We think that it is correct to state explicitly that the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means are the appropriate post-holders in the unlikely event that a recall petition affects the Speaker.
	That point was raised with the Government informally, so we hope that the Minister has had a chance to consider it. His previous answer was that the Chair would be vacant because the Speaker would be serving a custodial sentence. However, we have just agreed by an overwhelming majority to make an amendment that will apply this to non-custodial sentences, so that argument no longer holds
	water. Also, if an MP received a very short sentence, they could be out of custody by the time the recall procedure was initiated.
	This is purely a tidying-up exercise and we do not see the point in detaining the House. We are sure that the Minister will have reflected on our previous discussions and will agree to make these minor but necessary changes to the Bill.

Tom Brake: I intend to make a satisfyingly and commendably brief contribution: these amendments are not controversial.
	Amendment 9 would remove from the Bill the wording of the petition signing sheet and the ability to amend it by regulations. This would be replaced by a power enabling the wording to be prescribed or amended by regulations following consultation with the Electoral Commission. The wording of the petition signing sheet currently appears in the Bill and can be amended through regulations. This aligns with the power that exists in the Representation of the People Act 1983 that allows for the ballot paper for UK parliamentary elections to be amended through regulations, although the form of the ballot paper itself appears in the Act.
	Amendment 10 seeks to amend the wording to appear on the petition signing sheet by making it easier for the elector to understand that the MP will not lose his or her seat and a by-election will not be held if fewer than 10% of the registered electors in the constituency sign the petition. I remind hon. Members that this wording has been developed in conjunction with the Electoral Commission to ensure that it is balanced and fits with the commission’s guidance on referendum questions.
	I can see the intention behind the amendments. The first amendment addresses concerns expressed in Committee that if any user testing takes place—I can confirm that we do intend to user-test the wording of the signing sheet—it might be clearer to remove the wording from the Bill and accept that the final form of words will appear in regulations. It is important that the wording is approved by Parliament, whether on the Floor of the House or in a delegated powers Committee. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that proper consultation should be part of the process of developing the wording. That is why we have worked on it with the Electoral Commission and are now looking to test it further to ensure that it is right. Either the power in clause 9 or that proposed in amendment 9 would allow the wording to be adapted or set should changes flow from the user testing. Amendment 10 demonstrates that there is no single way to word the signing sheet, and that is why we are committed to undertaking user testing. The views of the public will provide us with a clearer picture on where improvements can be made not only to the signing sheet but to the notice of petition.
	As for the wording of the petition signing sheet, there is a specific purpose behind the use of the words,
	“as a result of the petition.”
	If the petition is successful, it is right that a by-election will be held. However, if the petition is unsuccessful, it is not necessarily the case that a by-election will not be held. A by-election could be held because the MP decided to resign his or her seat, or otherwise lost his or her seat. The use of the words,
	“as a result of the petition”,
	seeks to ensure that the public understand that the effect of an unsuccessful petition is not necessarily to prevent a by-election. The question for the House is whether the wording should be retained in the Bill or be replaced with a power to prescribe the wording in regulations. If the wording is to be retained, the question then is whether we accept the proposed amendment to clarify that a by-election will not be held or leave this to user testing.

Lady Hermon: A small but very important point is that those signing a petition should know of the percentage that is required and the consequences that the Minister has outlined. Will he shed some light on the sequence of the wording in subsection (4)? Why are the two paragraphs in that order and not in the reverse order, which would be much more helpful to those signing the petition?

Tom Brake: As I said, this has been discussed with the Electoral Commission, which has been very careful to ensure that the wording is as clear as possible. I will have to get back to the hon. Lady on whether there was a specific reason why the paragraphs were put in that order, but I suspect that it was felt that that was the clearest way of presenting the information, rather than the alternative she suggests.
	Amendments 11, 12 and 13 would amend clause 19 regarding the role of the Speaker. Under the Bill, certain functions, such as giving notice to the petition officer in the relevant constituency when one of the recall conditions has been met, are performed by the Speaker. As currently drafted, clause 19 allows for the Speaker to appoint a person to perform the relevant administrative functions, including giving notice of the opening of the recall petition process, if the Speaker is unable to perform these functions or there is a vacancy in the office of the Speaker. If no such person is appointed by the Speaker, there is a provision that the Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chair of Ways and Means will perform the functions. The provisions in clause 19 as originally drafted replicated those found in other legislation such as the Recess Elections Act 1975.
	During the debate in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) pointed out that as the Chairman of Ways and Means and Deputy Chairs are now elected rather than being appointed by the Speaker, the functions of the Speaker should automatically be carried out by the Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chair of Ways and Means in the event that the Speaker cannot perform them. The amendment would ensure that if the Speaker was indisposed and unable to perform the relevant functions, the functions would be performed by the Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means rather than giving the option to the Speaker to appoint someone else. In addition, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) expressed concern about who would perform the Speaker’s duties in the event that the Speaker was the person whose behaviour had triggered the recall conditions. The amendments put it beyond doubt that in such a situation the functions relating to the recall petition process would be carried out by the Chairman of Ways and Means or his deputies.
	Some matters of detail will need to be addressed, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge is content not to press his amendments I am totally confident that
	those matters can and will be addressed in the House of Lords. I hope that the House will consider the full range of points made in the debate when considering these amendments.

Julian Huppert: This has been a brief and fairly agreeable debate. I hear what the Minister has said. I said that I would not press any proposal that was criticised in the House, and I will not do so. In particular, I should listen carefully to what the Electoral Commission has said, especially because my predecessor is one of the commissioners, so I would not challenge his wisdom. I accept the Minister’s commitment to address these matters in the House of Lords, although I do have a concern about the habit of this House to wait for the other place to fix things. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Third Reading

Sam Gyimah: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	As you can tell, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very keen for the Bill to be read a Third time. I will start by thanking my colleagues, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and the Deputy Leader of the House, for the role they have played in the debates so far. I also thank Opposition Front Benchers—I can say this with confidence—for the constructive and non-partisan way in which they have approached the Bill.
	I thank those who have tabled amendments, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for his principled arguments and the passionate way in which he and others have advanced their case. As on Second Reading, I reiterate my thanks to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill.
	The coalition’s programme for Government made a commitment to establishing a recall mechanism for MPs who have been found guilty of wrongdoing or misconduct. The Bill fulfils our coalition commitment to delivering a practical recall mechanism to hold MPs to account when they have done something wrong.

Caroline Lucas: Does the Minister understand why so many of the people who are following this debate are so incredibly disappointed by the recall Bill we have ended up with? It is a sham and bogus, because essentially it means that most ordinary people are not going to be able to hold their MPs to account in the way that they expected.

Sam Gyimah: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. As I have said, the Bill delivers on our manifesto commitments. There was also a free vote on the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and, as the hon. Lady knows, they were heavily defeated.
	Today’s Report stage has rightly given Parliament the opportunity to listen to and vote on a range of proposals to amend the Bill. It has been open to the House to make further amendments and they have been subject
	to free votes. This is a continuation of the approach the Government have taken throughout the Bill’s passage through this House. The purpose of the Bill remains to give the public their say on whether an MP who has been found guilty of serious wrongdoing should retain their seat in this House.
	We considered in depth, both on Second Reading and in Committee, the option proposed by some hon. Members of implementing a recall system that would allow the recall of MPs on any grounds and at any time. However, we continue to believe that that approach would leave MPs vulnerable to constant challenge at the public’s expense, which is not compatible with our system of representative democracy. We believe that the principle of linking recall to wrongdoing strikes the right balance between holding MPs to account while making sure that they can do their job.
	I will not reiterate the triggers for recall nor the process by which a petition is run. I believe that the constructive way in which all contributors have approached the issue, whether during pre-legislative scrutiny or through the parliamentary debates, has resulted in a high-quality and in-depth discussion of the proposals, which I very much hope will continue as the Bill continues to be considered. I commend the Bill to the House.

Jonathan Edwards: I rise to make a brief contribution, primarily to say that this Bill is a missed opportunity. It could have genuinely empowered people and I was very happy to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), but instead we have a Bill that empowers Westminster.
	Of more interest to me is the fact that this Bill could have given us the opportunity to empower the devolved Administrations to introduce their own recall mechanisms should they wish to do so. It is disappointing that my new clause 4 was deemed out of scope in Committee. It would have given powers over recall to the devolved Administrations. It would have been an empowering amendment, not a prescriptive one, that would have given power to the devolved Administrations to introduce whatever recall mechanism they wanted.
	I had hoped that we would build some sort of political consensus on the issue. Prior to the Bill coming to the House, the Secretary of State for Wales told the Welsh Grand Committee:
	“The recall of MPs Bill, which we will introduce later in the Session, will put in place a mechanism by which MPs can be recalled in certain circumstances, and I am exploring with the Presiding Officer whether such a mechanism is desirable in the Assembly.”—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 16 July 2014; c. 14.]
	On Second Reading, I raised that exact point with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who said that,
	“in principle, if this House has a reserve power, it should give it up so that it becomes a matter for the devolved bodies themselves to decide”.—[Official Report, 21 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 786.]
	I thought that that represented progress. Indeed, during that debate, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) seemed to indicate that he would be open to my proposals should there be a request for the powers from one of the devolved Administrations.
	Alas, the Bill has not been strengthened to give the devolved Parliaments those powers. Plaid Cymru fully supports the principle of enabling the National Assembly to make those decisions. Indeed, we support devolving all powers over electoral arrangements. It is interesting to read some of the leaks from the Smith commission on Scotland, namely that electoral arrangements will be devolved fully to the Scottish Parliament. We will wait to hear what is announced on Thursday.
	In Wales during the past few weeks, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Assembly, Kirsty Williams, called, with much fanfare, for powers over recall for the National Assembly. Indeed, she called for an open recall similar to that proposed by the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. Unfortunately, however, it is obvious that she has not liaised with her colleagues in the UK Government, because the National Assembly for Wales has no power to introduce such a recall mechanism as it has not been included in this Bill. That is a further reflection of the disjointed way in which the Unionist parties work in Wales.

Caroline Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reluctance of other Members to adopt a genuine recall mechanism reveals their distrust of their own electors and that that speaks volumes?

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that genuinely vital point. The Bill as drafted further empowers a Committee in Westminster to decide who should be recalled. It will further disfranchise people on the ground and reduce trust in Westminster—not that it is my job, of course, to try to encourage trust in Westminster.
	In closing, I believe that this is a missed opportunity on two grounds. First, the Bill should have been used to genuinely empower people. Secondly, its scope should have been widened to enable the national Parliaments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to introduce their own recall mechanisms should they wish to do so.

Andrew Lansley: I want to express my support for the Bill as it finishes its passage through this House. In particular, I want to repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that the Bill was introduced on the basis that the principal parties in this House went into the last general election with manifesto commitments to a form of recall, and that is substantially reflected in the Bill.
	Some Members have attempted to wear the cloak of democracy and say that we should have passed a completely different Bill that said something radically different and that would have rewritten, on the back of a day or two’s debate in the Chamber, the relationship between MPs and their constituents. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) was rightly critical of that proposal and made it clear that it would change us substantially from being a representative democracy to being a more direct democracy whereby the electorate, notwithstanding their decision at the general election, could reach into the Chamber of the House of Commons, pull out Members and try to eject them on whatever grounds they chose, and at a time of their choosing, between one general election and another.
	For that reason, I do not think the Bill is friendless. The Bill has merit and the fact that it will be relatively sparingly used in practice will, I hope, reflect the changed climate of behaviour in this House. It is important to note that during this Parliament the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has not referred anybody to the Standards Committee to be sanctioned for breaching the expenses requirements of this House. The Standards Committee has been acting in relation to events that took place before this Parliament, not during it. We have changed since 2009-10. We have introduced proper independent scrutiny and we have a structure of sanctions.
	Contrary to the points made on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), I do not think that the Bill’s second trigger simply hands the issue to a committee of parliamentarians upstairs. I hope that when the House of Lords considers the Bill, we in this House will continue to consider how to make the work of the Standards Committee more independent and transparent. I know that the Standards Committee, and its Sub-Committee led by its lay members, is now looking at that matter.
	I will not repeat all that I said on Second Reading, but it is important that the Committee does its job in the right way. When I was the Leader of the House, I put to the Committee my view that it should enhance the role of the lay members, and I made it clear not only that they should not bring forward a report without the support of the lay members, but that if they did, my successors as Leader of the House, whoever they were, would see it as their duty to ensure that the lay members’ views, including any contrary views, were put to the House for a decision. The truth of the matter is that, constitutionally, only the House itself can determine the sanctions applied in relation to membership of the House as a consequence of the actions of Members as Members of Parliament.
	I hope that the House of Lords will recognise that the second trigger is not a cosy example of parliamentarians exercising judgment on parliamentarians. I hope that the Standards Committee, following its scrutiny, will propose in its report that the process should be led by lay people as much as by parliamentarians.
	Parliamentarians and lay people should act on the basis of proven investigations. Much of what we have heard in the debate has concerned the idea that Members of Parliament should be subject to recall in relation to allegations, which they have to reply to, with no proper investigation and with no proven outcome from any investigation. That is where the Standards Committee, with the benefit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, should deliver a sound basis for deciding whether a Member of Parliament has been found guilty of any wrongdoing. That is a sound basis on which to proceed with recall.
	It is a perfectly legitimate view of the nature of our democracy for people to want, as some clearly do, to have a much more open recall system, in which Members can be pulled out of the Chamber by their constituents at any time, but that view should be tested at a general election by being proposed in a party manifesto. I will not be standing at the next election, so it is not for me but for future MPs to make such a decision. For now, it is right and proper to deliver on the pledges we made to
	our constituents in our manifesto at the last election. We should not be in the least bit hesitant about saying that that is the right and proper step to take.

Stephen Twigg: When the Minister moved the Third Reading, he thanked several people, and I associate myself with the thanks he gave them all. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), the members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and Members on both sides of the House and on all sides of the debate. At various stages, we have attempted to reach agreement with Ministers, the Liberal Democrats, and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and his cross-party group.
	This debate is of real importance to our politics. We all know that many members of the public feel disconnected from this place and disenchanted with the political process. The principle of recall is just one way in which we can give more power to our constituents to hold their representatives to account. As has been said throughout the debate, all the three main parties committed themselves to recall in the manifestos in 2010. The Labour manifesto stated:
	“MPs who are found responsible for financial misconduct will be subject to a right of recall if Parliament itself has failed to act against them.”
	We maintain this position today: we support recall, but we accept that in designing a system there is a careful balance to be drawn between one that allows constituents to recall their MP if they are guilty of serious misconduct, and one that allows constituents to do so simply because of a disagreement with their MP’s views or policy decisions.
	As was said earlier, the Government chose to table no amendments on Report. The Opposition sought to strengthen the Bill, and I am delighted to say that our attempts were successful, with three amendments being carried. I welcome the passing of amendment 14, which lowers the suspension threshold for recalling an MP. As a result, MPs such as those who received cash for questions in the 1990s would now, under the lower limit, be subject to recall. As we promised in our last manifesto, amendment 24 means that any MP convicted of financial misconduct under IPSA legislation—the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009—will be open to recall. I am delighted at that, because putting it into law will instil greater public confidence in MPs’ financial prudence in the wake of the expenses scandal. By approving amendment 16, the House has ensured that the Bill covers MPs convicted of offences that were not public knowledge when the electorate voted them in. I am pleased that that sensible amendment was adopted by a substantial margin.
	We have worked to improve this Bill, and we will seek to explore further options in the House of Lords, including for a robust independent mechanism to enable citizen-based recall. We must tread with care when involving the courts in democratic processes. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) have been very clearly rejected, but they were real risks, because of the specific contents of their proposals. The Opposition believe that a robust independent
	mechanism to enable citizen-based recall is desirable, if an achievable and effective way can be found of doing so. I hope that a cross-party solution can be agreed in the other place.
	The Bill is an important statement about our commitment to accountability and democracy. Throughout its passage, the Opposition have worked to strengthen it. We will continue that work in the Lords so that the Act ensures that the public have confidence both in this place and in the recall process so that there is greater accountability of Members of Parliament.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 2 to 4 together.
	Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages, etc.

That the draft Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Conversion of Civil Partnership) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.

Marriage

That the draft Consular Marriages and Marriages under Foreign Law (No. 2) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 24 October, be approved.
	That the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) and Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.—(John Penrose.)
	Question agreed to.

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 5 and 6 together.
	Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Tajikistan) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.
	That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Canada) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.—(John Penrose.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Energy

That the draft Fuel Poverty (England) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.—(John Penrose.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Paternity and Adoption Leave (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(John Penrose.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Licences and Licensing

That the draft Legislative Reform (Entertainment Licensing) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved. —(John Penrose.)
	Question agreed to.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSOLIDATION, &C., BILLS

Ordered,
	That Mr Robert Buckland be discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills.—(John Penrose, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ordered,
	That David Morris be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee.—(John Penrose, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Treasury

Ordered,
	That Mr Pat McFadden and Mr George Mudie be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Rushanara Ali and Mike Kane be added.—(John Penrose, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

TRAFFIC CONTROLS (SCHOOLS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(John Penrose.)

Gisela Stuart: I know that, under the rules of the House, I could entertain Back Benchers and Front Benchers for the next two hours-plus, but I do not intend to do so.
	I want to talk about parking and traffic outside schools. I invite the House briefly to imagine the scene at 8.45 in the morning outside a school. Parents and adults are walking to school with their children, chatting, checking that everything is in order and waving their charges off as they walk through the school gates. If there are any roads to be crossed, it is usually the local authority that ensures that there are school crossing patrols to see children and adults across safely. Once children are inside the school, every parent rightly expects that the school and the teachers will take care of those in their charge. They want the environment to be safe and they want to be sure that nobody tolerates bullying and that not a single child is put in a dangerous situation.
	A significant number of parents walk to school. Some do so because they think it is the right thing to do or because they live nearby. A number of parents drive to school. Some have to do so because it is on their way to work or because they have several children in several schools. Others do so by choice. There is a valid argument that we ought to discourage some of those who drive to school by choice from doing so. Of those who come by car, a large number park nearby, taking care that no obstruction is caused, and walk the last few yards to the school gates. So far, so good. If that was what happened outside every school gate, I would not have called for an Adjournment debate.
	At every school gate that I have come across in all my years, there is a small number of parents who insist on parking on double yellow lines, on pavements and in front of driveways, who block exits and who cause dangerous obstructions. So far, I have talked only about the morning. The situation is worse in the afternoon, when parents might arrive early and have to wait for their children. Those parents create a danger to themselves, to their own children and to other children.
	I cannot be the only politician who has heard some choice language over the years in my discourse with voters. However, I have to confess that I have never come across language quite as fruity, aggressive and in your face as when a local councillor and I decided, about six months ago, that the only way we could deal with this issue in some of our schools was to go out and ask the parents to move on. I do not name the schools deliberately, because doing so would give the impression that they were unusual. Birmingham has about 475 schools. I know that this problem is spread across the city and does not just affect Birmingham. It just happens to be worse at some schools than at others.
	What happened was extraordinary. Outside one school, a road crossing patrol lady in her early 70s was run over by a driver deliberately because they were so aggressive. Such things simply cannot go on. When we went out at one local school, a parent was driving on the pavement. I stood in front of the car and said, “I don’t think you should be doing that.” The man wound the window down
	and said, “Are you that Mrs Stuart or that Miss Badley?”, because the councillor who came out with me was Caroline Badley. I said, “I’m that Mrs Stuart and I’m not moving until you move.” The string of expletives that came out of the car was really quite extraordinary. The key thing is that such people are a minority, but that minority is causing a simple problem. If we just use the current legislation, I do not think that we will change the behaviour.
	On some occasions when we have gone out, we have asked the local traffic enforcement officers to go out with us. That has not quite worked because the powers on when it is appropriate and right to issue tickets are fairly unclear. On other occasions, we have asked the schools to help us with the children coming out. The children will stand out on the pavements with placards, telling the drivers that their behaviour is simply not appropriate. That works, but only for short periods. We think we have just cracked the problem and then, come September, a new cohort of parents comes in and the problem starts all over again.
	There is a real question over whose problem it is. The schools have an interest in their pupils getting to school safely. However, I do not want to make teachers and governors into part-time traffic marshals. They have a role to play, but they must be part of something much wider. One local primary school made sure when it had rebuilding work done that its staff had enough parking spaces, so that the school was not adding to the traffic problem. However, the head teacher told me that when she went out with traffic cones, the parents simply ignored her. She, too, heard a lot of foul language. It is not enough for just the schools to act.
	The local authorities have an interest. Parking offences are civil offences and local authorities have the power to enforce them. They are also responsible for providing a safe environment for the travel-to-school journey. Some authorities have developed policies. I am sad to say that Birmingham has not. The last time Birmingham looked at wider issues such as parking on pavements was when a certain Councillor Steve McCabe, who is now the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak and has been since 1997, was a local councillor there. The council could do more, but that would not be sufficient on its own.
	Mature cities such as Birmingham have particular problems. Their schools tend to be in densely populated areas with very narrow roads. Again, that is not a sufficient explanation for the problem. Local authorities and transport agencies also have an interest because, certainly outside several of my local schools, the traffic chaos that is caused affects the bus routes—because the parents are double parking, the buses cannot get through.
	All those people have an interest in the matter, but it is never sufficient for anybody to pull things together and decide what to do. I will not call for large-scale legislative changes because that is not the issue. However, we need to stop and think about a proper framework on how we can solve this problem on a long-term basis. Clause 38 of the Deregulation Bill, which is in Committee in the House of Lords, would prohibit the general use of CCTV for parking enforcement, with limited exceptions. That needs to be looked at seriously, because the use of
	CCTV for parking enforcement outside schools during periods when there is a significant problem ought to be taken up.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who has Front-Bench responsibilities for road safety, has done some useful work on what has happened to local authority budgets in respect of such enforcement. He has found that the Government have axed road safety grants by more than a third, which is having detrimental effects. Something like nine in 10 local authorities have cut their road safety budgets and a third of local authorities have cut road safety staff. To quote my hon. Friend, we have ended up with a rather “pickled policy”, which will not help schools or traffic, and will not help to make things better.
	Could we work with police community support officers? I have asked those in my area to stand outside schools, and they have been supportive, wearing their uniform and waiting outside. To be honest, however, the only thing that will hit home for that small minority of parents who are simply not amenable to reasonable conversation is a ticket. Unless we give PCSOs the power, in limited circumstances, to issue tickets outside schools, we may have real difficulty. Community traffic officers also work outside schools, but they are over-cautious in their willingness to issue tickets.
	In the light of the significant cuts already experienced—from what I am led to believe, after the next Budget they will be even worse—I accept that we may have fewer community police officers and traffic enforcement officers. Nevertheless, I have come across processes through which the police train laypeople to take evidence that can then be used either for warning letters or prosecutions. About 20 years ago kerb crawling was a real problem in two areas of Birmingham. Local community groups followed tightly drawn up protocols with the police, which allowed the police to use as evidence car registration numbers that had been noted down. We should be able to do something similar. I believe that some local authorities are already doing this, but perhaps parents outside schools and governors could agree a protocol for taking down the registration numbers of offending drivers. The police will then send those drivers a warning letter to say that their behaviour has been unacceptable. That must be a way forward.
	Such a process means working with other agencies. Car insurance companies have an extraordinarily strong interest in greater road safety. We should encourage companies such as AXA Insurance, which claims that it wants to do more for road safety, to provide cones outside schools, or jackets for people who wait outside and say to people, “Move on, we are patrolling your pavements and we have some authority.” No single action will make progress, so we must bring together the means that we already have.
	Given the fragmentation of our schools, the local authority is no longer the real authority that holds school families together; we are also dealing with academy chains. The Government need to send a clear message to say to schools, “You think that road safety outside schools is important, as do we. We will provide a framework and protocols that you can use to bring together traffic enforcement measures, police officers and outside agencies, so that we can help you to go outside the school gates and end the absolute mayhem that takes place at some schools.”
	I live in Birmingham on the Hagley road. Jokingly, I sometimes say to parents that if they ever hear about an incidence of road rage by an elderly woman around 8.45 am on a weekday, it is probably when I try to turn off the Hagley road. There are nursery schools, and cars are parked on both sides—it is a main artery into the city and the junction is completely jammed and traffic cannot flow because of that parking. We know that that will happen for two half-hour spots in the day; it is not unexpected because we know that on every school day between 8.45 and 9 am, and at about 3.30 or 4 pm, there will be traffic jams. Unless we start to address that with protocols that allow those on the ground to challenge people who behave badly—indeed, a small number behave exceedingly badly and their effect is disproportionate —we will end up with serious accidents outside our schools, particularly as local authority cuts will mean fewer school crossing patrols. There will be fewer local authority activities to provide for road safety, and we as politicians need to address the issue with open eyes.

Robert Goodwill: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing this debate. Her colleague, the shadow road safety Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), is on the Opposition Benches to listen to her remarks as well as to what I have to say, and I suspect that we will have a lot of common ground on this matter because it affects constituencies up and down the country. I am pleased to speak about an issue that is vital for the safety of our schoolchildren—indeed, the hon. Lady is probably pushing at an open door in that regard. In rural areas such as the one I represent, we have the additional problem that many parents seem to get into bigger and bigger four-wheel drive vehicles, which makes it harder for people to see when manoeuvring. Perhaps it is a fact of modern life, but a lot of people seem to set off far too late to take their children to school and have to race there.
	We are all too aware of how traffic tends to be more congested during school drop-off and pick-up periods because many of us use our vehicles to take our children to and from school. Schoolchildren are therefore more likely to be at risk from traffic during those periods, and it is a particular problem directly outside schools because some children make their way home on foot or walk to the nearest bus stop. The Government are keen to increase the number of children who walk to school—we have set a target of 55%—and good schemes such as walking buses or “park and stride” encourage people who perhaps live too far away from their school to walk the entire distance to walk for some of it. That is good news not only for reducing congestion outside schools, but also for improving general health and well-being. When I drive to York station on a Monday morning to come to London, it is obvious when it is half term because the traffic is so much better.
	Let me mention some of the legal measures available to local authorities and schools, and the powers that local authorities have to address the problem. Local authorities can tackle congestion and protect vulnerable schoolchildren by applying traffic control measures such as “School Keep Clear” zig-zag markings outside school areas. Those areas can be either advisory or mandatory,
	and it is for the local authority to determine what is appropriate in particular circumstances. If it considers that an advisory approach will be effective, the local authority should apply the appropriate zig-zag crossing on the road outside the entrance of a school to indicate to drivers that stopping or parking is not permitted in the marked area. An advisory marking is unenforceable by the local authority because it is not prohibited in an order made by the council, and traffic signs are not required to indicate the advisory marking. The police can, however, give a driver a parking fine for causing an obstruction as a result of stopping or parking on a “School Keep Clear” road advisory marking. Advisory markings are only intended to act as a deterrent, although as we have heard, some drivers take a lot of deterring.
	If a mandatory approach is considered more effective, the local authority will be required to make a “School Keep Clear” zig-zag marking a parking prohibition in an order, and it must also apply appropriate road markings and traffic signs. Local authorities that have taken over responsibility for parking enforcement from the police can enforce a mandatory “School Keep Clear” marking with a penalty charge notice. Current arrangements provide flexibility for local authorities to decide whether an advisory or mandatory approach is needed, and I believe that they are best placed to tackle traffic management in their area. Most school governing bodies that I know include one or two councillors, so it will be easy for them to feed back that concern.
	Parking on the pavement near schools is common practice in some areas and can cause severe problems for parents with children in pushchairs, people in wheelchairs, or the visually impaired and blind. Pavement parking could also block the footway passage for schoolchildren, forcing them on to dangerous roads.
	In London, parking on the footway is prohibited, but in some areas it is permitted to maintain easy traffic flow. It would be for the London local authority to decide parking arrangements for a local area, and that may include permitting pavement parking. In England outside London, parking on the pavement is not banned. However, local authorities have the power in legislation to implement a pavement parking prohibition in particularly problematic areas, such as outside schools.

Gisela Stuart: The Minister is absolutely right about the legal framework, but the reality is that our local authorities’ financial means have been cut to the bone. If I go to my local authority and say that I want one of those traffic management orders, it will say, “We simply do not have the money.” In Birmingham, there are more than 475 schools and it simply does not have the means. We need other ways and issuing tickets is the simplest thing to do.

Robert Goodwill: I will come on to other ways that may be used to dissuade people from bad behaviour, but I am currently outlining the statutory tools available to local authorities in particular areas. Issuing tickets will create revenue, which may make the system self-financing. However, I must make it clear that we do not support any measures that could be seen as re-declaring the war on motorists that the previous Government seemed to be engaged in.
	Since 2011, enforcing pavement parking in English areas outside London has been made easier by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Lewes (Norman
	Baker), who was responsible for removing the requirement for councils to apply for individual traffic sign authorisations. Baroness Kramer wrote to English local authorities outside London this summer, reminding them of their existing powers to enforce pavement parking and encouraging them to do so.
	Double parking outside schools when dropping off or picking up schoolchildren can obstruct the passage and flow of traffic, and may put schoolchildren at risk of being hit by a passing vehicle. Local authorities with parking enforcement powers can enforce double parking violations without the requirement for traffic signs, because double parking is prohibited in national legislation. Similarly, local authorities can give a penalty charge notice to drivers who block access to school grounds or nearby facilities as a result of parking their vehicle alongside a dropped footway outside the school area.
	Yellow line restrictions near school areas can also be enforced by the local authority. In these circumstances, the police can only enforce if a vehicle is causing an obstruction as a result of parking on a yellow line, or if the local authority has not as yet taken over the responsibility of parking enforcement from the police. I suspect Birmingham is an authority that has taken over enforcement powers from the police, and I encourage all local authorities that have not yet done so to take on those powers. Local authorities have the power in legislation to make arrangements for the patrolling of places where children cross roads on their way to and from school. My Department works closely with intermediaries and partners who engage with children directly, such as teachers, out-of-school group leaders and parents, to communicate road safety messages. The Department provides them with free lesson plans, resources and activities that can all be found on the Department for Transport’s award-winning “THINK!” website. Moreover, the Department continues to work with local road safety officers and stakeholders, including the road safety charity Brake and in partnership with the RAC, to help them deliver road safety plans.
	My Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government recently consulted on proposals to tackle over-zealous parking enforcement by local authorities. One proposal was to introduce a ban on the use of CCTV by local authorities for on-street parking enforcement. The Government received an overwhelming number of responses requesting that the use of CCTV by local authorities for traffic enforcement outside schools be exempted from the ban.
	We recognise that the primary objective of any camera system for enforcement is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of public highways by deterring motorists from breaking traffic restrictions and detecting those that do. We also recognise that areas outside schools are more susceptible to traffic accidents if a robust system of enforcement is not in place. For that reason, we have listened to the views of the general public, and parents and teachers in particular, and have exempted from the ban the use of CCTV by local authorities for traffic enforcement outside schools. That could be in the form of either a fixed camera or a camera van to ensure that people who are parking illegally receive the appropriate sanctions. CCTV is necessary in these areas in particular, because it takes most drivers only 10 seconds to drop
	somebody off. Therefore, even if a parking warden or an officer of the council is there, it is not possible to ticket more than one car. With the use of cameras, enforcement can be done in a pretty severe way to get the message across to parents who park dangerously. It would be great to have the hon. Lady outside all the schools in Birmingham—I am sure similarly stern ladies could do the work—but the use of cameras is one way to ensure that people cannot get away with dropping people off.

Gisela Stuart: I am glad to hear that. Can the Minister be more precise on where cameras will be located and on the enforcement process for evidence gathered from CCTV? Whose responsibility will it be: the local authority or the police?

Robert Goodwill: Where civil enforcement has been taken over by the council, as in the case of Birmingham, it would be up to the local authority, through its civil enforcement officers. If it was a particularly big or busy school it would be possible to install a camera outside the school to do that work, but other local authorities could use a van with a camera fitted to enable that to happen and to provide a deterrent when word gets around that people are being ticketed.
	Unfortunately, no matter how strong a message is given to parents, either directly or through their children, not all parents understand the dangers of parking outside schools. If local authorities want to use cameras, we have allowed them to use them in specific locations: red routes in London, bus lanes and outside schools. I was keen to impress on my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government how important it is to make an exception for the situation outside schools. As hon. Members probably know, this has been taken forward as an amendment to clause 39 of the Deregulation Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. It will enable the power to be retained by local authorities and for there to be an exemption from the camera ban.
	There is important work to be done by schools on information campaigns and sending notes home from school. I have heard of cases where vehicles and their registration numbers have been listed and circulated back to parents to try to encourage more responsible behaviour. I repeat that we absolutely understand the problem. We need to give local authorities the right powers, and retaining the use of cameras gives them those additional powers. As I have outlined, there are several ways local authorities can enforce parking restrictions outside schools, and I would encourage them to use those powers.

Gisela Stuart: Given that the installation of CCTV outside schools can be an incredibly sensitive matter for some local populations, particularly in Birmingham, as we have seen, will a protocol be put in place and would consultation with local communities be undertaken first?

Robert Goodwill: There are certainly processes that local authorities would need to go through, although not in the case of vans. If there were several schools in an area where this was a problem, the use of a van fitted with camera equipment might be the best means of enforcement, and of course parents would never know when it might be parked outside their school.
	Once again, I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this matter to the House. It is a matter that concerns me as a parent—even if my children are now past school age—and one that affects every constituency in the country. She has identified a real problem that parents are worried about, and I hope I have reassured her that local authorities have the powers to do something about it, and I hope they will avail themselves of those powers where this is a particular issue. The last thing we want is children being
	deterred from walking to school or feeling unsafe because of the mêlée of cars outsides their school. We need to get people walking to school again, whether all the way from home or from a sensible parking place.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.